IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11515 of 2010 RAMJEE RAI S/O LATE SHEODHAR RAI R/O MOUZA- PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA (O.P.- BHANAS), P.O-SASARAM, DISTT-ROHTAS..DEFENDANT NO.1-PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR (THROUGH LAW SECRETARY, BIHAR PATNA). 2. THE REGISTRAR, CIVIL COURT, ARA, BHOJPUR …….RESPONDENT 1ST SET 3. KASHINATH RAI S/O LATE SHEOHAR RAI, R/O MOUZA- PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, DISTT.- ROHTAS AT PRESENT R/O JAWAHAR TOLA, P.S.- ARA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR………PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2ND SET 4. MOHINI DEVI D/O SHEODHAR RAI, W/O RAMA SHANKAR RAI, R/O GOLA MOHALLA, P.S.- ARA TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 5. SUSHILA DEVI D/O SHEODHAR RAI, W/O RAM SHANKAR RAI, R/O NARSINGHPUR DHAWANI, P.S.- BHAWANIPUR, DISTT.- ROHTAS. ….DEFENDANTS 3RD SET-RESPONDENTS 3RD SET 6. SURESH RAI S/O LATE RAMESHWAR RAI, R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. RAM NIWAS RAI S/O LATE RAM BACHAN RAI R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 8. DINANATH RAI S/O LATE RAM BACHAN RAI R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 9. SATYA NARAYAN RAI S/O LATE RAM BACHAN RAI R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 10. RAMANUJ RAI S/O LATE RAM BACHAN RAI R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 11. HARIDWAR RAI S/O LATE RAM BACHAN RAI R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, DISTT.- ROHTAS ….DEFENDANTS 4TH SET-RESPONDENTS 4TH SET 12. BHAGWAN RAI S/O LATE GANESH RAI R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 13. MADAN RAI S/O LATE RAM NARESH RAI, R/O PANCHO DEHRI, P.S.- DINARA, P.O.- DOIYA, VIA- KOCHAS, DISTT.- ROHTAS….DEFENDANTS 5TH SET-RESPONDENTS 5TH SET ----------- 02/ 08.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 17.06.2010 by which Subordinate Judge-VI, Ara rejected the prayer of - 2 - defendant no.1-petitioner for stay of further proceeding of Title Suit No.230 of 1992. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent no.3 not only for partition but also for declaration that the suit property was the exclusively purchased property of Shanti Devi and also for permanent injunction, etc. The said claim of the plaintiff was fully contested by defendants who had filed their pleadings but the matter is still pending although eighteen years have lapsed. It further transpires that the objection raised by defendant- petitioner in the court below was that the suit had abated under the provision of section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 but the said objection had earlier been raised by the defendants in their previous application which was rejected by the court on 20.08.2004 on merits. In the said circumstances filing of another application by the defendant-petitioner on 15.03.2010 for the same purpose cannot be legally entertained. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 17.06.2010. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the court below is directed to complete all the necessary formalities of the suit and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)