IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2891 of 2010 1. CHANDESHWARI PRASAD MANDAL 2. Chhedi Prasad Mandal 3. Niranjan Kumar 4. Rajiv Kumar 5. Rakesh Kumar 6. Rulesh Kumar All residents of village and P.S.-Bhutauli, Malpa, P.S.-Choutham, District-Khagaria ………… Petitioners. Versus 1. JAGDEO PRASAD 2. Birendra Kumar 3. Upendra Prasad 4. Rajesh Kumar 5. Praveen Kumar All residents of Village and P.O.-Bhutauli Malpa, P.S.-Choutham, District- Khagaria. ……….. Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 25-08-2010 1. This case has been listed today vide order dated 4.08.2010 when the petitioners were given another opportunity to produce any material available with them, which may have any impact in the instant case by way of filing supplementary affidavit within two weeks after serving a copy of the same upon learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. On 4.08.2010 this M.J.C. petition was listed in view of order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5789-5790 of 2009, which was filed by the petitioners challenging orders dated 4.08.2008 and 20.10.2008 passed in S.A. No. 224 of 2006 rejecting the prayer for stay. The Supreme Court had given liberty to the petitioners to file an application for modification with such proof as they may have in regard to existence of any building against which respondents were also given liberty to resist. 2 3. In consequence to the said order of the Supreme Court, petitioners has filed the instant M.J.C. case on 20-07-2010 after about 11 months annexing a photograph of the suit premises as Annexure-A, but when the said photograph was compared to the photograph attached as Annexure-1 to the earlier I.A. No. 5563 of 2008 filed in the said second appeal, it became apparent that both the photographs are copies of the same negative and no fresh material as per the direction of the Apex Court, has been produced by the petitioners in the instant case. Hence, vide order dated 4.08.2010 liberty was given to the petitioners to produce such materials as per the order of the Supreme Court. 4. No such material has been produced by the petitioners nor any affidavit has been filed by them and learned counsel for the petitioners seeks some more time for filing such affidavit. 5. It is quite apparent that petitioners should have filed any proof with regard to existence of any building on the suit land along with the M.J.C. petition, but they did not do that. Furthermore ample opportunities were given to the petitioners by this court also to produce such proof, but they have miserably failed to do so. This clearly shows that the petitioners have got no material at all and they have made wrong statements before the Supreme Court and are bent upon merely lingering the case. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this case, which is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)