IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.193 of 2010 SMT. RENU DEVI WIFE OF SRI PRAMOD KUMAR BHAGAT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAJENDRA PURI, NAKA NO. 5 P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, P.S. NAGAR TOWN, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 6. BAIDYANATH MAHTO SON OF LATE KEWAL MAHTO RESIDENT OF LALBAG, P.S NAGAR TOWN, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----------- 03. 04.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner challenges the order dated 15th of September 2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to the order of this court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 515 of 2007 as contained in Annexure- 7. Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed without appreciating the documents as contained in Annexures – 10, 11 and 12 of the writ application. It is further submitted that proceedings have been dropped on the ground that the fact as to who has put the lock in the shop in question has not been established, and as such, the respondent no. 3 committed serious error while appreciating the relevant documents. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that on perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the matter needs thorough appreciation of the disputed questions of fact. Respondent no. 3 after perusal of the documents and submission of the parties have come to a conclusion that the matter relates to the examination of title and also the question of eviction on the shop on question. Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, it appears that the matter invites the appreciation and adjudication on disputed question of facts which cannot be properly decided in a writ proceeding. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)