IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21051 of 2011 Ved Prakash Chaudhary Versus Most.Thulsi Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 01.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Bajrangi Lal appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This writ application under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge – I, Hazipur at Vaishali in Title Suit No. 536 of 2001 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for framing an issue which should be decided as preliminary issue. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below considered the facts of the case and also the direction given by this Court on 10.12.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 762 of 2006 read with order dated 7.7.2010 whereby this Court framing a specific issue directed the court below to decide the question regarding the maintainability of the suit as being barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A C.P.C. because the plaintiff petitioner has filed application challenging the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1972 / 217 of 1973. From perusal of the order of this Court which has been annexed as Annexure 2 and 3 with this writ application a specific direction has been given to the court below to decide this question about the bar to the suit as provided under Order 23 Rule 3-A C.P.C. and, 2 therefore, this issue has already been framed by the High Court. The parties are knowing this question which is to be decided by the court below and the court below is proceeding to decide the same. In such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by court below nor any prejudice is caused to either side. I therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)