IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No. 582 of 2008 ABHAY PRASAD Versus GAJENDRA KUMAR GAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS ----------- 11. 11.5.2009 Heard Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.9.2008 whereby in Title Suit No. 108 of 2008 the prayer of the plaintiff- appellant for grant of injunction has been rejected. It must be noted here itself another suit, Title Suit no. 143 of 2008 has been filed by the Respondents wherein their prayer for grant of injunction has been allowed by a separate order dated 15.9.2008 which is the subject matter of connected M.A. 7 of 2009. In this appeal this Court by order dated 1.10.2008 while issuing notice on the I.A. no. 6058 of 2008 seeking ad-interim injunction during pendency of the appeal and granted status-quo as it existed on 1.10.2008. This Court would find that the 2 court below while considering prayer of the appellants in Title Suit No. 108 of 2008 had found that the land in question being subject matter of a sale deed and power of attorney in favour of this Respondents could not have been subjected to further alienation at the instance of the appellant because in the mutation case, possession of the respondents was found to be confirmed on the basis of the reports of the revenue authorities. Mr. Jha, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has remained in possession of the such land despite the sale deed in favour of the Respondents and that in view of status- quo order of this Court dated 1.10.2008, the apprehended breaking of heads has been avoided. Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, would submit that right from the date of execution of the sale deed and the land being mutated in favour of the respondents, the respondents have remained in possession and as such 3 status-quo order of this Court in no way has adversely affected the position of the respondents. Both the parties, therefore, are contending that they are in possession and status-quo order passed by this Court on 1.10.2008 is also in their favour. In such circumstances this Court would find that disposal of the suit itself would end the stalemate as the question of title and possession of the parties can be conclusively decided only in the light of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Since the pleadings has already been completed, this court would direct the court below to take up hearing of the suit expeditiously and preferably on day to day basis and dispose it of within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In that view of the matter this appeal is disposed of with a direction that both the Title Suit no. 108 of 2008 and Title Suit no. 143 of 2008 should be heard together and disposed of simultaneously within a period of nine months from the date 4 of receipt/production of a copy of this order and till such disposal the order of status-quo as passed by this court on 1.10.2008 shall continue to bind both the parties. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Abhay Kumar