IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.112 of 2007 NARESH KAHAR Versus SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD ----------- 2 18/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the court below was absolutely right in passing the impugned order. The strength of passing such order flows from the judgment in Second Appeal No. 355 of 1987, wherein this Court had passed the following order:- “I have already stated above that the plaintiff’s title was held to be valid, on the basis of the evidence adduced, by both the lower courts. The appellate court, of course, held that the suit was not barred by adverse possession or by law of limitation, and I have already dealt with the question whether the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. So, I am to hold further that the suit could be decreed in its present form under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to seek the relief of mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendants be directed to remove their structures, temporary or permanent, on the suit land, and they be further directed to refrain from raising any fresh structure or in any manner changing the physical features of the suit land.” 2 It has to be noted that the aforesaid judgment of the Second Appeal No. 355 of 1987 was also made subject matter of civil review before this Court and this Court after considering the submissions of counsel for the petitioner had dismissed the same by order dated 5.10.2007 by a reasoned judgment. In terms of the decree which now emanates in view of the aforementioned direction in paragraph-7 of the judgment, the court below cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, informed this Court that an application being M.J.C. No. 2781 of 2007 has been filed for modification/recall of the aforementioned order in the Second Appeal. If that be so, the petitioner will be at liberty to take suitable steps in that M.J.C. No. 2781 of 2007. That being so, this application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar 3