IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.340 of 2007 MAHENDRA BHAGAT, S/O LATE BANESHWAR BHAGAT @ BAWAN BHAGAT,R/O VILLAGE JAMUNIA, POLICE STATION PARWATTA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR …………….APPELLANT Versus 1. RITA DEVI, W/O LATE RAJENDRA BHAGAT 2. SUNIL KUAMR @ SUNIL BHAGAT 3. ANIL KUMAR 4. ARUN KUMAR 5. RAVI KUMARSONS OF LATE RAJENDRA BHAGAT ALL R/O JAMUNIA, P.S. PARWATTA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 6. UPENDRA BHAGAT 7. ASHOK BHAGAT 8. BINOD BHAGAT, SONS OF BANESHWAR BHAGAT @ BAWAN BHAGAT 9. SMT. KISHNI DEVI, W/O LATE BANESHWAR BHAGAT @ BAWAN BHAGAT, ALL R/O VILLAGE JAMUMIA, POLICE STATION PARWATTA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 10. RAJENDRA SAH, S/O LATE SURAT SAH 11. SONI KUMARI 12. ANNU KUMARI 13. SUJIT KUMAR MINOR DAUGHTERS AND SON OF RAJENDRA SAH UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR FATHER RAJENDRA SAH, AND GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND.ALL R/O BHARAHI BAZAR, POLICE STATION BHARAHI,DISTRICT MADHEPURA. 14. SMT. SURTI DEVI, W.O. ARBIND YADAV OF VILLAGE JAMUNIA, POLICE STATION PARWATTA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 15. SMT. KIRAN DEVI, W/O PRABHASH CHANDRA YADAV, R/O VILLAGE JAGATPUR, POLICE STATION NAUGACHHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ……..RESPONDENTS 13. 16.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents, with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The appeal has been preferred against order dated - 2 - 05.06.2007, passed in Title Suit No. 32 of 2001 by 2nd Sub-Judge, Naugachhia. By one order court below has refused the prayer of interim injunction made by defendant-appellant, seeking an order to restrain the plaintiff to alienate the properties left by him in the plaint, but in the written statement-cum-counter claim, the defendant-appellant has made the same subject matter of the suit mentioning the details in Schedule A of the written statement. The second portion of the order deals with the order relating to their appointment against which undisputedly Civil Revision No. 1532 of 2007 is pending. It is undisputed and also appears from the order of the court below that in this nine years old case, hearing has already commenced and at lest one witness has been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned counsels are not in a position to state about subsequent developments towards further evidence of the witnesses in the case. The members of the Bar are in agreement to this extent that early disposal of the suit shall be in the interest of the justice as well as the parties. The parties shall maintain status quo, with respect to the properties mentioning in Schedule A of the written-cum-counter claim filed by defendant-appellant before the court below. The learned counsel for the appellant is not sure whether required court fee of counter claim has been deposited or not but assure to make the deficit, if any good within a month from today. With the above observations and directions to the parties to - 3 - do the needful and maintain status quo, this appeal stand disposed of. Simultaneously, court below is directed to proceed expeditiously with the suit and dispose it of within six months, if not by any order of competent court, proceeding has been stayed. Let, order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of appellant. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)