IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2353 of 2006 NARENDRA KUMAR & ANR Versus HARIBANSH PRASAD ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Mahesh Prasad & Mr.Rajendra Lal Das For the O.P. : Mr.Devendra Kumar & Mr/Balram Kapri. 2. 23.9.2008 In the opinion of this Court once the petitioner is himself a decree holder in a subsequent suit with regard to that very suit property whose possession is sought to be recovered from him in pursuance of execution of the earlier decree, the petitioner definitely can resist and was required to be given accommodation till Misc.Case No. 6/2005 was not disposed of. This is because if Misc.Case No. 6/2005 is dismissed, the decree holder in the earlier case, the opposite party herein, will have no case for getting his earlier decree executed because he has in the subsequent proceeding lost that very suit premises but in case that decree on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming his right is itself set aside in Misc.Case No. 6/2005 in that case the petitioner will have no defence unless his suit for specific 2 performance is decreed again after contest by the opposite party. That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order and direct the court below in seisin of Misc.Case No. 6/2005 to take up hearing the miscellaneous case within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and pass a final order within a period of three months thereafter. Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that in case Misc.Case No. 6/2005 is allowed his client will voluntarily give possession in question to the opposite party without any demur and protest till the time they are allowed again the decree of specific performance in their favour. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/