IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1626 of 2008 RAMESHWAR PRASAD, S/O LATE GAJADHAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-GODNA KOIRY TOLA, P.O.& P.S.-REVELGANJ, DISTRICT-SARAN (CHAPRA). ………………DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Versus 1. SUJIT KUMAR, SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE GODNA KOIRY TOLA, P.O.&P.S.-REVELGANJ, DISTRICT-SARAN (CHAPRA). 2. SUBHASH PRASAD, S/O RAMESHWAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-GODNA KOIRY TOLA, P.O.&P.S.-REVELGANJ, DISTRICT-SARAN (CHAPRA). …………………PLAINTIFF/O.Ps. For the petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv. For the O.P.No.1 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh,Adv. For the O.P.No.2 : Mritunjay Kr. Tiwary,Adv. ----------- 6 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The defendant no. 1 has filed this revision application against order dated 29.7.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge Vth, Chapra in Partition Suit No. 49 of 2002 by which the petition of the defendant no. 1 for allowing him to construct a temporary wall in the eastern side has been rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inspite of the status quo order passed by trial court on 3.11.2006 the defendant no. 2 has removed the mud-tiles from roof of the three rooms and has damaged the wall of the rooms exposing the residential quarters of the defendant no. 2 1 to intruders and anti social elements. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he has already filed petition in the court below against the defendant no. 2 for disobedience of orders of the status quo. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has rejected the petition on the ground that earlier orders had been passed for the parties to maintain status quo on 3.11.2006. It is obvious that if the defendant no. 2 has violated the status quo order he is liable to be proceeded against for violation of the said order and court below is competent to take action in the matter. It is also obvious that after change of nature of the residential quarters by defendant no. 2, if the residence of the plaintiff is exposed to intruders and anti social elements from outside, some order for his safety and protection is required to be passed by the court by necessary modification in the order of status quo. In such circumstances, the order dated 29.7.2008 is set aside and the matter 3 is remitted back to the court below for hearing afresh and pass appropriate orders. Considering the later developments as also considering the materials which have come on record by way of Pleader Commissioner reports or otherwise, it is expected that the court below shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after hearing the parties. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)