IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12481 of 2011 Nabi Hassan Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 03. 11.08.2011 The State of Bihar is not necessary party in this Appeal. Therefore, the name of State of Bihar is deleted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants- petitioners against the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by Sub Judge Xth, Patna in Title Suit No.464 of 1983 whereby the learned Court below directed that in view of the direction of District Judge, all the applications shall be heard together and directed the petitioner to complete his argument on the application dated 05.05.2011 filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below should have decided the application filed by the respondent No.2 and also should have passed order separately on each of the application From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the District Judge directed the Court below to dispose of the suit as it is of the year 1983 and also observed that the petitioner is not completing his argument on the application dated 05.05.2011 and, - 2 - therefore, directed the petitioner to complete his argument and fixed the case for the next date, i.e., 07.05.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted the fact that on the ground of pendency of this application before this Court, he filed application for time and the case was adjourned. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that on this ground alone, the case is being adjourned from day to day. In view of the above facts, it appears that the learned Court below has rightly observed in the ordersheet dated 06.05.2011 to the effect that the defendant-petitioner with a view to keep pending the applications is not completing his argument. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Since the suit is of the year 1983, the trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit without giving unnecessary adjournments. As discussed above, in my opinion, this is not a fit case where supervisory jurisdiction is required to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)