IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.272 of 2007 DR.VINOD KUMAR, SON OF SRI BHARAT PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA NAGLA, P.S. MALSALAMI, PATNA CITY, DISTT. PATNA. -----(PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT BELOW)----- APPELLANT. Versus 1. VINAY KUMAR, SON OF SRI BHARAT PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA KUMAR MARKET, MAHRUFGANJ, P.S. MALSALAMI, PATNA CITY, DISTT. PATNA. 2. SRI BHARAT PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAM DAS 3. SMT. KRISHNA RANI, WIFE OF SRI BHARAT PRASAD, BOTH R/O MOHALLA NAGLA, P.S. MALSALAMI, PATNA CITY, DISTT. PATNA ------- (DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT BELOW) ……DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- 14. 07.02.2011 Heard the parties. The Appellant is aggrieved with the order dated 28.4.2007 passed by Sub Judge-II, Patna City, in Title Suit No. 119 of 2003 by which an application for appointment of receiver has been rejected by the trial court in a suit for partition. It appears that the appellant was the Plaintiff in the court below and the Defendant No. 2 was his father whereas the Defendant No. 3 is the step mother whereas the Defendant No. 1 happens to be the step brother of the plaintiff-appellant. During the pendency of the present appeal, the Defendant No. 2 passed away and, therefore, the suit abates on his behalf. It has been submitted that on 5.11.2003 a Written Statement was filed on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 whereas, the Respondent No. 1, to linger the matter, filed his Written Statement only on 13.9.2004. The further submission is that in the Written Statement of the then Defendant No. 2 and 2 Defendant No. 3, there was no whisper of an earlier partition in the family whereas the Defendant No. 1 raised such an issue in his Written Statement. It has been brought to the notice of the court that the Appellant filed an application for appointment of receiver on 6.1.2004 to which the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 replied on 17.8.2004 supporting the appointment, whereas the Defendant No. 1 chose to file his reply only on 11.7.2006 i.e. more than two and half years purposefully since he alone was the person who was enjoying the joint family property. Since the Defendant No. 1 is enjoying the suit property exclusively for the last about more than seven years, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in the facts of the case. However, the court below is directed to expedite the proceeding and conclude the hearing of the suit within a period of next nine months in which disposal neither of the parties shall be given any indulgence of adjournment unnecessarily. In case the suit is not concluded within the said period, the parties will be at liberty to agitate their grievance afresh. With these observations, the application is disposed of. Let the lower court’s record be transmitted to the court below immediately through special messenger, if required. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)