IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.333 of 2009 SMT.SEEMA KUMARI @ SEEMA DEVI wife of Nitin Kumar and daughter of Sri Jaleshwar Prasad Singh, at present resident of village and P.O.-Rahimapur, P.S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali, Bihar …Defendant/Appellant Versus SRI NITIN KUMAR, son of Sri Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Permanent resident of village-Randaha, P.S.-Raja Pakar, District- Vaishali (Bihar), presently residing at 6/295, Vinit Khand, P.S. Gomati Nagar, Lucknow (UP) …Plaintiff/Respondent ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. V. Nath, Mr. Bimal Kumar & Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocates ------------ 10/ 02.12.2010 Heard the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2009 passed by Civil Judge I (SD), Vaishali at Hajipur, in T.S. No.379 of 2008, by which he has allowed the injunction petition of the respondent (plaintiff). It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the principles of injunction have not been followed by the court below and, therefore, the order suffers from patent illegality. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent asserts and defends the impugned order. There is no dispute that the plaintiff and the defendants were in matrimonial relationship at one point in time but subsequently there were differences between the two. Before the difference arose, the appellant was also a trustee of Oasis Educational and Social Development Foundation Trust of which the plaintiff was the Managing Director. There is also no dispute that the suit land was purchased before 23.05.2003 i.e. the date on which the trust was - 2 - created. Even though there is dispute with regard to the actual ownership of the suit land, there cannot be any dispute that on the document the appellant has been described as the owner. Further it is a matter of record that the suit land was leased to the trust subsequent to its creation describing the appellant as the owner. In my view, considering that the educational institution is being run on the suit land, it will not be proper for any court to disturb the institution and it would be against the interest of the society, if it is done. The parties are, therefore, in agreement that so long as the suit is decided, the suit land will not be alienated. Since the appellant contends that there could be reason for cancelling the lease, it would be desirable that the suit is decided within a certain specified period. As the matter relates to an educational institution, the court below is directed to conclude and dispose of the suit i.e. T.S. No.379of 2008 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since the parties agreed to an agreement before this court, there is no necessity of specifying that the impugned order of the court below is set aside. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of. Let the lower court records be transmitted to the court below at once. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)