IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.95 of 2007 1. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh, Son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, resident of village and P.O. – Chandrahatti, P.S. and Anchal – Kurhani, Sub-Division – West Muzaffarpur, District – Muzaffarpur. ………… Defendant …….. Appellant. Versus 1. Sri Damodar Singh. 2. Sri Ramanand Singh, both sons of Late Nathuni Singh. 3. Sri Uma Shankar Singh. 4. Sri Gauri Shankar Singh. Both sons of Late Dashrath Singh. 5. Sri Ram Naresh Singh, Son of Late Faujdar Singh. All resident of village and P.O. – Chandrahatti, P.S. and Anchal – Kurhani, Sub- Division – West Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. …… Plaintiffs …….. Respondents 1st Set. 6. Most. Bandana Singh, Widown of Late Rajeshwar Singh, resident of village and P.O. – Chandrahatti, P.S. and Anchal – Kurhani, Sub- Division – West Muzaffarpur, District – Muzaffarpur, at present posted as A.N.M. in referral hospital Asthawa, District – Nalanda. ….. Defendant ……… Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 6. : Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate. 08/ 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for both the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Sub-Judge-IInd, Muzaffarpur in Partition Suit No. 442 of 2002 by which he has rejected the petition for grant of injunction. However, this miscellaneous appeal was admitted and at the out set an order of status quo was passed by the order dated 17.01.2002, however, even after 2 the notice to respondent nos. 1 to 5 who are plaintiff- respondent Ist set did not appear. Respondent no. 6 has appeared and has supported the case of the appellant who was defendant no. 1 and respondent no. 6 was defendants. The injunction petition was filed in the lower court specifically stating that the entire suit land of R.S.P. No. 693, 688, 777, 781, 802 and 789 of R.S. Khata No. 293 and 292 and R.S.P. No. 305, 306 and 307 of R.S. Khata No. 400 are the core land in the vicinity of the house and the plaintiff was going to sell the land with stranger Punit Singh and after negotiation the petition was field on 20.12.2006. However, the injunction was rejected by the impugned order. However, during the course of hearing the appeal, the petitioner has filed an affidavit that the respondent-appellant has sold the said land of R.S.P No. 693, 688, 777, 781, 802 and 789 of R.S. Khata No. 293 and 292 in the name of Shavitri, the wife of said Punit Singh. The learned lower court, however, rejected the prayer on the ground that the appellant has not got a prima facie case, and also finding the balance of convenience not 3 in favour of the appellant and on the ground that the sale of land may not cause any irreparable loss to the parties. However, having regard to the facts that respondent nos. 1-5 sold the land may cause inconvenience to the appellant and hence the parties are ordered to maintain status quo as existing today till disposal of the suit and the lower court is directed to expedite the hearing of the partition suit so that the suit may be disposed of at the earliest preferably within a year in strict compliance of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure in granting adjournment. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)