IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.433 of 2007 Rajendra Prasad, son of late Ram Govind Prasad, resident of Mohalla Bakerganj Daldali road, P.O. and P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. …Defendant IInd Party-Petitioner. -versus- 1. Smt. Kamla Gupta, wife of late Chandradip Prasad 2. Rajesh Kumar son of late Chandradip Prasad Both resident of Mohalla Bakerganj Daldali road, P.O. and P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. …Plaintiffs Opposite Ist Party. 3. Tara Gupta (widow) of late Jagdish Prasad 4. Sri Kamlesh Kumar 5. Bimlesh Kumar 6. Mithilesh Kumar Sons of late Jagdish Prasad 7. Bini 8. Banti 9. Bittu, son of Bimlesh Kumar All residents of Mohalla Salimpur Ahra, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Kadamkuan, District Patna. …Defendant IInd Party-Opposite 2nd Party. 10. Dipak Kumar, son of Rajendra Prasad, residednt of Mohalla Bakerganj Daldali road, P.O. and P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. …Defendants 2nd Party-Opp. 3rd party. 11. Manoj Kumar 12. Rakesh Kumar 13. Manish Kumar Sons of Surendra Prasad All residents of Mohalla Bakerganj Bari Path, in the back of Apna Bazar, P.S. and P.O. Kadamkuan, District Patna. …Defendants 3rd party-Opp. 4th Party 14. Jogendra Prasad alias Bhola Sah, son of late Sheogobind Sah 15. Santosh Kumar 16. Munne sons of Jogendra Prasad, ..Defendants 4th part-Opp. 5th party. . ------ For the Petitioner : M/s T. N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate, Ramadhar Singh and Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : None. ----- 04/ 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- 2 petitioner challenging order dated 22.11.2006, by which learned Subordinate Judge III, Patna, rejected his prayer for allowing him to make some addition and alteration in a portion of the suit premises which he claims to be in his possession in Title Partition Suit No. 480 of 1984. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties first set for partition of their 1/8th share in the suit properties detailed in Schedules I and II of the plaint. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidences were led, which were closed much earlier. 3. However, in the meantime learned court below passed an order dated 28.09.1989 restraining defendants no.8 to 17 from making any construction over municipal survey plot no. 472, which was part of the suit premises. The petitioner is one of the said defendants against whom the order of injunction was passed. 4. However, during the pendency of the suit in the year 2003, the petitioner was permitted to construct a toilet but his prayer to convert the tin-shed into a pucca roof in the south-east of the tenanted premises on the first floor was rejected. 5. It transpires that on 22.08.2006 when evidence had already been closed and the suit was fixed for arguments, the petitioner again filed an application for granting permission of repairing the suit premises and making addition and alteration therein. This prayer has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 22.11.2006, which is under challenge in the instant 3 civil revision. 6. From the averments made by the parties and materials on record including the impugned order of the learned court below, it transpires that the learned court below has gone in detail regarding the matter in issue and after considering the facts and circumstances as well as the materials available, passed the impugned order. Furthermore, since the suit had remained pending for much more than two decades and was at its fag end as it was placed for arguments, there was no occasion for the learned court below to entertain such frivolous applications filed by the defendants. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any irregularity therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the suit and conclude its arguments within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order refusing all unnecessary adjournments sought by one party or the other. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )