IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2158 of 2007 NIRMAL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Versus SHRI NATH YADAV ----------- 2 2/9/2008 After some argument counsel for the petitioner would accept the position that instead of assailing the impugned order granting stay by the appellate court under order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. it would be better for both the parties that the appeal itself be disposed of. In the opinion of this Court, such prayer of the petitioner seems to be very fair. This Court taking into account that the suit of the year 1991 was decreed in 2004, whereafter an appeal was filed against the preliminary decree being Appeal No. 6 of 2004 and when final decree was prepared, Appeal No. 42 of 2005 was filed would not interfere with the impugned order passed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. but at the same time would direct the court below to dispose of both the appeals, i.e, Appeal No. 6 of 2004 and Appeal No. 42 of 2005 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 2 With the above direction/ observation this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar