IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8874 of 2006 SUMAN SHARMA, SON OF SHRI DEEP NARAYAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOPALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR…PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNIL SHARMA. 3. AMAR NATH SHARMA @ ANGAD SHARMA. BOTH SONS OF SHRI DEEP NARAYAN SHARMA. 4. DEEP NARAYAN SHARMA, SON OF LATE YADUNANDAN SHARMA. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- GOPALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR…DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 5. BISHNU BHAGAT SON OF LATE RAMOTAR BHAGAT, VILLAGE SUKTIA BAZAR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 6. JAGESHWAR HARIJAN SON OF LATE TIWARI HARIJAN VILLAGE GOPALPUR P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 7. MOHD. RAZZAK, SON OF MOHD. GHOLTI RAZZAK, VILLAGE MUSLIM TOLA, GOPALPUR DIST. BHAGALPUR. 8. SHUNIL JAISWAL. 9. ABHAY JAISWAL. 10. NIRBHAY JAISWAL. ALL SONS OF LATE YADUNANDAN BHAGAT, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SUKTIA BAZAR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 11. DINESH SHARMA, SONOF LATE BHOLA SHARMA, VILLAGE GOPALPUR. P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 12. AJAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE GOPI PRASAD SINGH VILLAGE KOTHI TOLA GOPALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 13. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE GOPI PRASAD SINGH. 14. RAJIV KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE GOPI PRASAD SINGH. 15. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE GOPI PRASAD SINGH. ALL THE SONS OF LATE GOPI PRASAD SINGH, VILLAGE KOTHITOLA GOPALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR. DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 16. RAJ KISHORE SAH, SON OF LATE AMBIKA SAH. VILLAGE HARNACHAK, TELHARI TOLA, GARARI, MAKANPUR, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 17. JICHHO HARIJAN SON OF BINCHU HARIJAN, VILLAGE- GOPALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ..VENDEES…RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amar Nath Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A. Amanullah, G.A.-4, Mr. M.K.Pathak, A.C. to G.A. 4. Mr. Arun Kumar, A.C. to G.A. 4. ======= 2. 17.05.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. From the impugned order dated 2 15.09.2001, Annexure-2 as also the appellate order dated 11.03.2005, Annexure-4 it appears that the request of the petitioner for grant of injunction has been refused. In the circumstances, there is no occasion for me to pass any order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. 3. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to invite the attention of the trial court towards the sale- deed(s) executed by the defendant(s) to establish the defendant(s) have sold beyond their 1/4th share and if that be so the trial court will consider granting injunction in favour of the petitioner. The trial court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the trial court. This order has been passed taking into account the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that defendant- respondents have already appeared in the suit and the suit was filed in the year 2000, as such, is pending for about eleven years. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)