IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.408 of 2006 MATHURA PRASAD Versus SHANTI DEVI & ORS. ----------- 09/ 01.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No argument is placed on behalf of the opposite parties, although notices have been issued and duly served on them and they appeared through their learned counsel in the case but for two days the matter had been adjourned on their prayers on one pretext or the other and last chance was also given but in spite of that today also again a prayer for adjournment is made on behalf of learned counsel for the opposite parties. This matter is of 2006 and due to pendency of the instant civil revision the suit in the learned court below has also remained pending for two years causing undue delay. In the said circumstance the prayer of the opposite parties for adjournment is hereby rejected. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-8, Hajipur (Vaishali) in Title Suit no. 321 of 2003 rejecting his petition dated 29.08.2005 for a direction to the opposite parties to remove the bricks from the existing passage so that the petitioner may bring his vehicle from the garage on the road with a categorical assertion/undertaking that the petitioner will not be entitled to take the benefit of the said order passed by the learned court below to this effect in the suit. 4. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the opposite parties for 2 declaration of their title on ‘Rasta’ situated in plot no.99 in Mohalla- Bag Taj Khan @ Pokhara, P.S. Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali measuring 07 dhurs. After filing of the suit the plaintiffs filed an injunction petition which was disposed of by the trial court on 18.09.2003 (Annexure-1) with a direction to both the parties that they will not put any gate on the ‘Rasta’ for obstructing the use of the ‘Rasta’ till the pendency of the suit. 5. It was alleged in the suit that violating the said order the opposite parties stocked bricks over the disputed passage due to which it became impossible for the petitioner to take out his vehicle from the garage and hence he filed a petition in the court below for a direction to the opposite parties to remove those bricks but the said petition was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 11.04.2005, whereafter the petitioner challenged it in Civil Revision No. 924 of 2005, which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 02.08.2005 (Annexure-2) permitting the petitioner to again file a petition before the trial court stating that if an order is passed by the learned trial court for removal of the bricks form the passage, the petitioner will not be entitled to take the benefit of the said order in the suit. It was also observed by this court that if such a petition is filed, the court below will consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 6. It further transpires that in the light of the aforesaid order the petitioner again filed a petition before the trial court on 29.08.2005 (Annexure-3) specifically undertaking that he will not be entitled to 3 take the benefit of the order of removal of bricks in the suit, but in spite of that his petition was rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 14.02.2006. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it transpires that while passing the impugned order the learned court below had not at all considered the import and spirit of the earlier order of this court dated 02.08.2005 and rejected the petition of the petitioner on frivolous grounds committing serious errors of jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned order of the learned court below dated 14.02.2006 is hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to remove the bricks from the existing passage so that the petitioner may be able to take out his car from the garage immediately. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to take the benefit of this order in the suit which has to be decided by the trial court on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. The learned court below is also directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously without giving undue adjournment to any of the parties. 8. It also transpires from the earlier order of this court dated 02.08.2006 (Annexure-2) that a miscellaneous case bearing Misc. Case No.04 of 2004 is also pending in connection with title suit before the learned Subordinate Judge-8, Hajipur, Vaishali, and hence the pendency of the same is causing undue problems in the title suit also. Thus, learned District Judge, Hajipur (Vaishali) is directed to see that the said case is disposed of by any appropriate court within two 4 months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order in the learned court below. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)