IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.514 of 2007 Randhir Choudhary son of Sri Keshav Mohan Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Babutola, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. …………………..Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Binoy Kumar Choudhary son of Late Jagdish Choudhary, resident of Vikramshila Nagar, Indumati Path, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. ………………………Plaintiff-Opposite party 2. Smt.Sugandha Kumari W/o Sanjay Kumar Tiwary D/o Sri Keshav Mohan Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Babutola, P.S. Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. 3. Shyam Sundar Choudhary S/o Late Bhumeswar Choudhary 4. Pawan Kumar Choudhary S/o Sri Shyam Sundar Choudhary, both are residents of Mohalla Babutola, P.S. Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. ………………..Defendants-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : M/s Shivaji Pandey and Braj Nandan Tiwary, Advocates. For the opposite parties : M/s Ashutosh Jha and Bijoy Kant Mishra, Advocates. ------------------ 03/ 02.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 24.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur, rejected the prayer of the defendant-petitioner to decide the issue of maintainability of the suit before hearing the injunction matter in Title Suit No.366 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for declaration of his title and also for declaration that the sale deed under challenge was illegal, wrong, inoperative, void and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff. 2 4. It transpires that an application for injunction was filed by the plaintiff on 19.12.2006 for restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land. However, vide order dated 16.01.2007 the learned court below directed that the injunction application be heard on 18.01.2007 positively. 5. It transpires that on 18.01.2007 the defendant- petitioner filed an application for considering the maintainability of the suit and prayed before the learned court below to consider his application prior to considering the injunction application. This application of the defendant-petitioner has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 24.01.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. From the arguments of leaned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it appears that unnecessary objections are being raised, as the application for injunction had been filed earlier and vide order dated 16.01.2007 it was fixed for being heard on 18.01.2007 hence the said interlocutory application for injunction should have been considered and decided on the said date and there was no question of waiting for the disposal of any subsequent application challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by the defendant-petitioner. The learned court below after considering the matter in detail rightly came to the conclusion that in such circumstances both the parties should come prepared on the next date for arguments in the injunction 3 matter whereafter the application of the defendant-petitioner regarding maintainability shall also be considered. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, since the matter is pending since long, the learned court below is directed to decide the injunction matter expeditiously preferably within a period of a week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Furthermore, learned court below shall also consider the application of the defendant with regard to the maintainability of the suit immediately thereafter and should decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one month in accordance with law without waiting for the issues to be framed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )