IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1142 of 2006 SMT.TALUK RAJ DEVI Versus RANVIJAY SINGH ----------- 5 05.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, there should have been no difficulty for the Court below to allow the prayer of plaintiff-petitioner in the suit to dispose of the piece of land which was covered by her share. The approach of the court below in rejecting such prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the reasons stated in the two separate application at tow different points were at variance seems to be wholly fallacious. Two different grounds mentioned in two applications of the petitioner does not mean that either of them or both of them are incorrect. That being so, this Court while setting aside the impugned order would direct the Court below to consider the second application of the petitioner afresh on merit and pass an order thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Before parting with this order, this court also must record its displeasure with the court below in seisin with the Title Suit as Title Suit no. 5/2000, for not complying the direction given earlier for expeditious - 2 - disposal of the suit. The Court below infact should have made a sincere and serious endeavour to dispose of the suit itself which in turn could have itself ruled out the prospect of an application of the plaintiff petitioner seeking permission for sale of her share of land. In that view of the matter this court would direct the Court below to dispose of the within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)