IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2086 of 2009 Mathura Prasad, son of late Bishwanath Prasad, resident of Mohalla Bag Taj Khan @ Pokhara Ganesh Cinema Road, P.S. Hajipur Town, P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali. …. Petitioner Versus 1. Shanti Devi, wife of late Braj Bhshan Singh “Bipin”, Advocate 2. Prakash Kumar Singh, son of late Braj Bhshan Singh “Bipin”, Advocate 3. Vikash Kumar Singh, son of late Braj Bhshan Singh “Bipin”, Advocate 4. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, son of late Braj Bhshan Singh “Bipin”, Advocate … Respondents ---------------------------------- 16/ 16.11.2011 In compliance of the earlier order of this Court, opposite parties are personally present in Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for disobeying and not complying the order of this Court dated 01.12.2008 passed in Civil Revision No.408 of 2006, by which the civil revision was allowed and the impugned order of the court below dated 14.02.2006 was set aside and the opposite parties (plaintiffs) were directed to remove bricks from the existing passage of the suit premises so that the petitioner (defendant) might be able to take out his car from the garage immediately. 4. Now it is admitted fact that the car has been removed from the garage by the plaintiffs, whereafter they have put a wall to prevent the defendant from putting his car again at the same place. 5. So far the aforesaid order of this Court is concerned, it is quite apparent that the order was only to enable the petitioner - 2 - (defendant) to take out his car from the garage immediately. That having been done and the opposite parties having tendered their unqualified apologies for the delay caused, there appears to be no reasons to continue this case. 6. Accordingly, this M.J.C. petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Vaishali, to expedite the hearing of Title Suit No. 321 of 2003 as the evidence of the plaintiffs is said to have been closed and the evidence of the defendant is to be taken. 7. Both the parties agree before this Court that the evidence will be concluded within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, whereafter both parties will conclude their arguments within one month thereafter. The said court is directed to conduct day to day hearing of the title suit so that it is finally decided within five months. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)