IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.44 of 2008 1. RAMNATH SINGH, son of late Nathuni Singh, resident of village Bada Telwa, post office – Chapra, P.S. – Chapra Town, District – Saran. 2. Rukmini Devi, wife of Lalu Rai 3. Sheo Shankar Kumar, son of Lalu Rai 4. Lalu Rai, son of late Ram Navami Rai, Nos. 2 to 4 residents of village Chhota Telwa, post office Chapra, police Station Chapra Town, District – Saran. ------------------ Plaintiffs in the court below ----------- Appellants. Versus 1. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, son of Shri Udit Rai 2. Shri Udit Rai, son of late Gorakh Rai, Both residents of village Katahari Bagh Maruti Nandan, post office – Chapra, police station – Chapra Town, District – Siwan. ------ Defendants in the court below. ----------Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Rai, Adv. ******** 22. 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsels representing the parties on the point of admission of appeal and I.A. No. 776/2008. During course of argument, It is submitted that this appeal has been preferred against order of the court below refusing prayer of the appellant under order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from changing the status of the suit land etc. It is submitted on behalf of defendants-respondents that one petrol pump of the respondents are running there and they are to do nothing. It further appears that since after filing of this appeal on one or the other grounds, adjournments have already been sought either independently or jointly by both the sides and 2 interlocutory application no. 776/2008 filed on 4th February, 2008 seeking an order o injunction from this court for restraining the defendants respondents from making any construction of the land in question or changing the nature of the land or encumbering the same during the pendency of the appeal. But, as stated above remained pending unattended interlocutory application. They have filed this appeal as well as I.A. petition seeking injunction which is a remedy which requires urgency. Since as submitted respondent has already done wherever he had to and now nothing to do, I find no necessity to admit his appeal or pass any order on I.A. petition as fairly stated by Bar that both have become infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal and I.A. No. 776/2008 both stand dismissed and simultaneously, the court below is directed to proceed expeditiously with the suit and dispose it of at the earliest. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)