IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3408 of 2005 LAXMAN RAI, SON OF LATE SUKHKHU RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-WAJITPUR, POLICE STATION-HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ……………………………………………………….PETITIONEER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RAJESHWAR RAI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-DIGHHIKALA, POLICE STATION-SADAR HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 3. SUKHDEO RAI. 4. SAKALDEO RAI. BOTH SONS OF LATE SAHEB RAI. 5. VISHUN RAI, SON OF LATE INAR RAI. 6. VASDEO RAI, SON OF LATE SUBEDAR RAI. 7. PARMILA DEVI, WIFE OF RAJENDRA RAI. ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-DIGGI KALA, P.O. HAJIPUR, POLICE STATION-HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. …………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 18.5.2011. Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 12. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.01.2005 (Annexure-4) passed in Miscellaneous Case no. 5 of 2002, by learned Sub-Judge- 9, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby prayer for restoration of Title Suit No. 12 of 1998 has been allowed with costs and suit has been directed to be disposed of on its own merit. For the reasons disclosed in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned court below was justified in restoring the title suit to its original record for 2 deciding the same on its merit. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, writ petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed, but no costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma,J)