IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16073 of 2008 BHARAT KUMAR PODDAR s/o late Radha Krishna Poddar, resident of Mohalla- Lal Bazar Town, Bettiah, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah, District- West Champaran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Bihar,Patna. 2. Ashok Kumar Poddar s/o late Radha Krishna Poddar, resident of Mohalla – Lal Bazar Town,Bettiah, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah, District-West Champaran. Respodnent 1st set. 3. Anand Kumar Poddar 4. Ajay Kumar Poddar 5. Arun Kumar Poddar All sons of late Radha Krishna Poddar. All resident of Mohalla – Lal Bazar Town,Bettiah, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah, District-West Champaran. Respondent 2nd set. 6. Shambhu Prasad Gupta s/o Janak Gupta, resident of Mohalla- Ujjain Tola, Mahawat Toli,Town- Bettiah, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah, District- West Champaran. Respondent 3rd set. 7. Smt. Bhagmati Devi w/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad, resident of village Siswa Basantpur, P.S. Chautarwa, District-West Champaran. 8. Sanjay kumar Srivastava s/o Braj Narain Srivastava, r/o Mohalla New Colony, Baswaria Town Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran. 9. Shri Rajeshwar Prasad s/o late Ghughali Prasad, resident of village Kachahari Tola, P.S. Nautan, District- West Champaran. 10. Smt. Reeta Devi w/o Sri Akhilesh Kumar, resident of village Amawa Majnar, P.S. Bettiah (M), District- West Champaran. 11. Smt. Uma Devi w/o Sri Kamal Kishore Prasad, resident of village- Barawa, P.S. Govindganj, District- East Champaran. At present residing at Mohalla Baswaria, P.S. Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran. 12. Rajendra Tiwari s/o late Ayodhya Tiwari, resident of village Dhumnagar , P.S. Dhumnagar, District- West Champaran. 13. Smt. Manju Sinha w/o Sri Anil Kmar, resident of village Syarani Mathia, P.S. Nautan, at present Jagdishpur, District- West Champaran. Respondent 4th set. ----------- 2 13.11.2009 Writ petitioner had filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 123 of 2006 before the learned Sub Judge- I, Bettiah for declaration of his title, restoration of possession primarily against his younger 2 brothers as also against transferees from his younger brothers of property allegedly purchased by him by registered sale deed from the money given by his wife from her Stridhan. During the pendency of the Suit, an application for ad interim injunction was filed, which after hearing, was rejected by the trial court. Petitioner- plaintiff preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah. This miscellaneous appeal being Misc. Appeal no. 9/07 has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 25th July, 2008 in view of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition under Article 227 of the Cosntitution. Heard Mr. Sidheshwari Pd. Singh for the petitioner in support of the writ petition for final disposal of the writ petition itself. He submits that, undisputedly, the land was purchased by a registered sale deed solely in the name of the petitioner. Thus, he has a prima facie case. The defendants, who are his brothers taking advantage of ill health, have created documents and are illegally selling those lands to other defendants, who have since purchased the same by the registered sale deed, which deeds are also under challenge in the said Suit. In such a situation, he submits that it would complicate the facts and make his relief difficult if the purchasers are not restrained from constructing on their land. Both the courts below, which are courts of facts, have rejected plaintiff-petitioner’s application for injunction. 3 In para 8 of the Appellate Court judgment, learned District judge has clearly mentioned that the defendants had executed sale deeds. All of them had purchased the same by registered sale deed for consideration. In case they make any construction, the same would be governed by lis pendens and without any compensation or anything they would , in case petitioner succeeds, be liable to restore the possession of the land as it is to the plaintiff- petitioner. Thus, no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff- petitioner. In my view, that is the correct approach in such a matter when courts of facts are held against the petitioner, I do not think it proper for this Court to interfere in this matter specially in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics –v- Ajit Prasad since reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 and The Municipal Corporation of Delhi –v- Suresh Chandra Jaipuria & anr. since reported in aIR 1976 SC 2621. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, in order to avoid any further complication in the matter, it is hoped that the trial court would take all effective steps to ensure that the Suit itself is disposed of within a period of nine months from today. I may only remind the trial court that Civil Procedure Code has undergone substantial amendments in the years 1999,2000 and 2002, which amendments were for the purpose of expeditious disposal of such cases like the present one which does not require much time or evidence. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)