IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.17 of 2009 RAM JATAN RAI, Son of Late Ram Padarath Rai, Resident of village Rupaspur, P.O. Shahay Nagar, Rupaspur, District Patna … Defendant-Appellant Versus 1. DR.SITARAM SINGH, Son of Late Ramnath Singh, resident of village Barania, P.O. and P.S. Barania, District Lakhisarai, presently at 72 Car Maner Road Leads, L.5-17-5 An (U.K.) at present Jalalpur, P.S. Rupaspur, District Patna through his constituted power of Attorney Holder Ranjan Kumar, Son of Shivchandra Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No. 502, Om Sai Apartment, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, Ranchi, Jharkhand … Plaintiff-Respondent. 2. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitu Kumar, Son of Ram Jatan Rai, resident of village Rupaspur, P.O. Sahay Nagar, Rupaspur, District Patna 3. Bastusanand Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Jai Shankar Prakash Son of late Madan Mohan Prasad, resident of Kankarbagh, P.O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Patrakarnagar, District Patna 4. Jai Shankar Prasad son of late Madan Mohan Prasad, resident of Kankarbagh, P.O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Patrakarnagar, District Patna … Defendants-Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr.Advocate. For Respondent no.1:Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi, Adv. For Respondent no.2:Mr.Nizamuddin, Adv. For Res.Nos. 3 & 4 :Mr.Ratneshwar Pd.Singh,Adv. --------- 4. 5.5.2009 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and the counsel for respondent no.2 as also counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4. This Court having perused the detail reasoned order dated 16.12.2008 2 granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff respondent no.1 is satisfied that the court below has committed no infirmity in granting injunction, especially when it has recorded a finding of fact that the story of the defendant appellant of making payment of a sum of Rs. 35 lacs approximately by cash was not acceptable. This Court for the present would not like to make any further comment on the case of the parties but then as the dispute is one relating to declaration of Power of Attorney and alienation made in terms of the said Power of Attorney it will be in the interest of all the parties that the suit itself is disposed of within a fixed time limit. Mr. Shahi appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent no.1 submits that the respondent plaintiff would be required to adduce oral evidence of 10 to 12 witnesses and would further exhibit some 30 to 40 documents. Mr. Dwivedi also submits that almost same would be the length and breadth of the case of defendant-appellant and therefore, the appellant would also confine 3 his case to almost same number of witnesses and documents (exhibits). The other three defendants, who are also represented before this Court through their counsel, would submit that they will also not take a long time in completing their evidence and all of them have conveyed that the suit can be disposed of within a period of nine months. Considering the aforementioned submissions at the Bar this Court would fix a firm period of one year for disposal of the suit from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order so that the suit itself gets disposed of positively by 31st of July, 2010. It is made clear that the trial court after completing hearing of the suit and delivering its judgment would submit its report. In the event there would be any non- cooperation by any of the parties the court below will record its reason and proceed further. In no event the case will be adjourned on any specious ground and if any such adjournment is prayed for by any of the parties, the reasons for allowing such prayer will have to be recorded. 4 All this has been done only to ensure that the rights of the parties which are only dependent on the dealings being made by them pertaining to the land in question are no longer made further subject matter of any alienation and/or change in physical feature of the land. Mr. Shahi very fairly submits that even the plaintiff would not like to make any construction and/or alienate the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Mr. Dwivedi of course has no objection to the concession made by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. That being so, this Court would direct the parties to maintain status quo as existing today with regard to the suit property and all of them are restrained either from changing physical feature of the land and/or alienating the same. All this has been done only on a firm assurance of the parties that the suit itself gets disposed of in the aforesaid period of one year. This Court, accordingly, directs the trial court to take up hearing of the 5 suit on day to day basis by fixing time limit of one hour in the morning so that the suit gets disposed of within the aforementioned time limit. With the aforementioned observation and direction this appeal is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/