IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2085 of 2008 ANITA DEVI Versus SHRIDHAR TIWARI & ORS ----------- 2 17/12/2008 Heard Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Some of the Civil Revision Application are filed in this court only to delay disposal of the connected suit in the court below. The present case is one of such cases. All that has been done by the impugned order is that prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party for fitting a pipe to give outlet to the water from his house has been allowed and that too in presence of the Advocate Commissioner. The defendant-petitioner who did not even raise any objection to the said outlet of water in the court below in fact was/is in no way going to be prejudice in as much as, the water so coming out from the house of plaintiff-opposite party from the pipe in question would flow on his land. Thus his opposition to the said order before 2 this court is only for sake of opposition. In the opinion of this Court the plea of the petitioner before this Court that there is no direct relief in the plaint for this part of taking out of pipe from the house of the plaintiff-opposite party, cannot render the impugned order of the court below to be without jurisdiction specially when the relief prayed in the suit is for declaration that the construction of a drainage in between the Gali above the height of the municipal road by the defendant-petitioner was against the easementary right of the plaintiff-opposite party who for that very purpose had prayed for injunction against the defendant-petitioner as with regard to discharge of water from his land and house. The second part of the objection that prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner in this regard had earlier been rejected, is also no ground because after that order the Pleader Commissioner was appointed and once the Pleader Commissioner brought the 3 matter on records, the court below having found the plaintiff-opposite party to be in a totally helpless situation had gone to pass such impugned order. As a matter of fact, suit in question, though appearing to be filed only on two grounds, is of much more importance as by virtue of this conflict not only the petitioner and the plaintiff- opposite party are being affected but other residents of the Mohalla and locality have also been put into inconvenience. In that view of the matter, while this Court would refuse to interfere with the impugned order it would still direct the court below to take-up hearing of the suit on day to day basis so as to finally dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, which by itself would ensure that the drainage problem as raised in the suit comes to an end before on set of the next rainy season. 4 With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar