IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.183 of 1999 1. ANIL KUMAR S/o Late Bijay Kahar 2. Ashok Kumar s/o Late Jagnnath Kahar 3. Ramgahan Kumar S/o Late Tuffani Kahar 4. Chottan Kumar 5. Raju Kumar, both s/o late Buttan Kahar, All R/o village Dumri Sahpur, P.S. Shivsagar, Distt.- Rohtas. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtash, Sasaram 3. The Distt. And Sessions Judge, Rohtash, Sasaram. 4. Most. Shiv Kumari Kuwar w/o Late Buttan Kahar, resident of village Dumri, Sahpur, P.S. Shivsagar, Distt.- Rohtas. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 9/ 25.11.2010 Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete the name of respondent no.3 from the arrays of respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State as well as for Most. Shiv Kumari Kuwar, respondent no.4. The petitioners and respondent no.4 belong to same family and are descendants of late Dhamri Kahar. The petitioners submits that on 24.10.1998, a petition was filed by private respondent, Shiv Kumari Kuwar, which gave rise to a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. bearing case no. 1511/M of 1998, in respect of plot no. 571, 544, 555, 570, 578 of khata no. 29 and plot nos. 471, 472, 515, 508, 514 of khata no. 83 of village Dumri, Thana no. 46 under Sheo Sagar police station. The petitioners submit that a Title Partition Suit has already been filed on 10.07.1998 between the parties being T.S. no. 56 of 1998. A copy of plaint is annexed as Annexure-5/1. In the aforesaid title suit, the private respondent Shiv Kumari Kuwar is defendant no.4. Learned counsel submits that subsequently in 145 Cr.P.C. 2 proceeding, the plots have been attached and receiver has been appointed. This Court by order dated 31.03.1999 had stayed further proceeding in case no. 1511/ M of 1998 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. However, the attachment was allowed to continue till the next hearing. This Court further observed that crops standing on the disputed land will be sold in presence of the parties. Learned counsel further submits that the properties belong to joint family and possession of a coparcener would tantamount to possession of other coparcener, till property is partitioned. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of Title Suit, the issue of receivership can be well agitated before the trial court itself. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decisions in the case of Kamo Sharma & 7 others Vs. Jagdambi Mahto, reported in 1968 PLJR 427. In the aforesaid case, this court quashed the 144 and 145 proceeding, which started during the pendency of partition suit in respect of the suit land between the same parties. In paragraph 7 it was observed that when the matter is already pending in the Civil court, it is desirable that the parties should seek appropriate remedy before the Civil Court. Counsel for the private respondent Mostt. Shiv Kumari Kuwar submits that this Court may direct the trial court to decide the issue of receivership expeditiously, as delay in deciding the same may lead to breach of peace. He further submits that respondent being a lady apprehends danger to her life and property from the petitioners. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 this Court observes that if any of the parties files a application before the trial court for appointment of receiver in respect of the suit land, which was subject of 144 and 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding, the learned trial court would decide the same expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of such application. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)