IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.25 of 2006 ARUN KUMAR JAISWAL & ORS Versus KRISHNA BIHARI JAISWAL & ORS ----------- 9 10.07.2008 Heard counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.9.2004 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner, for grant of injunction has been rejected by recording that neither there is any prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner. This Court in fact also does not find any reason to differ with the findings of the Court below and consequently this appeal is dismissed. However, taking into account that this is a partition suit of the year, 2001 and the pleadings by all the parties have been completed, this Court would direct the Trial Court to take up the hearing of the suit and dispose of it within one year of the date of receipt of production of the copy of this order. Counsel for the appellants, however, has expressed his apprehension that even in this - 2 - period of one year parties may change the whole concept of the partition suit by alienating the suit property. He, therefore, has prayed that this Court should restrain both the parties from alienating the suit property. In the opinion of this Court such apprehension of the counsel for the appellants is wholly misconceived inasmuch as after institution of the suit if any part of suit property would be and/or has been alienated by any of the party beyond their admissible share the Court below is definitely bound to take the same into account by applying the principles of Lispendens in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. With the aforementioned observation and direction this appeal is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)