IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.537 of 2011 1. Rabindra Tiwari , son of Sudarshan Tiwary, Resident of village Multani, P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. 2. Dau Tiwary, son of Ram Sakal Tiwary, Resident of Village Multani, P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. 3. Awadhesh Tiwary, son of Sakal Tiwari, Resident of Village Multani, P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. ... ... Appellants. Versus 1. Shakuntala Ojha, wife of Sri Ram Pd. Ojha, “Koil Kotai” Pirmohani, Patna-3. 2. Shanti Trivedi, wife of Sri V.S. Trivedi, Resident of P- 11/11 Telecom Colony, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). 3. Vimla Pandey, w/o Siya Ram Pandey Rtd. At and P.O. Paluhas, P.S. Tikari, District Gaya. 4. Shashi Prabha, W/O Pradip Kr. Sharma, Resident of village Sitalpur, P.S. Ekma, District Saran At present near Patna Engineering Colloege, Patna. 5. Ratna Prabha, wife of Kaniaya Jee @ Baijnath Shukla Banglous, Khudi Ram Bose Road, Muzaffarpur. 6. Dau Dubey, son of not known 7. Gopal Dubey, son of not known Both residents of village Choka, P.S. Majhiaon, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). 8. Bashisth Narain Dubey, son of Sri Jagarnath Dubey, resident of village Choka, P.S. Majhiaon, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). 9. Ram Briksh Dubey, son of Late Budhi Ram Pandey, Reident of village Tirojfier, P.S. Durganti, District Bhabhua. 10. Radhika, w/o Ram Briksh Singh 11. Rambriksh Singh, D/O Bimla Singh, Both Resident of village Multani, P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. 12. Radhika Devi, W/O Ganesh Singh, Resident of village Tiara, P.O. + P.S. Mohania, Bhabhua. 13. Raj Kumari Devi, w/o Vijay Kr. Singh 14. Sumitra Devi, W/O Sanjay Kumar Singh, Both residents of village Ameth, P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. 15. Asarfi Devi, W/O Ram Sakal Singh, Resident of village Pakrihara, P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. 16. Kusum Kri Devi, W/O Ram Sakal Pd. 17. Ram Sakhi Singh, son of Budh Ram, Both Residents of village Multani, P.O. + P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. 18. Banarsi Sharma, son of Late Sahdeo 19. Tribeni Sharma, son of Late Sahdeo 20. Babri Sharma, son of Late Sahdeo 21. Ram Pratap Sharma, son of Ram Prit Sharma. 22. Shiv Dhari Singh 23. Ram Chandra Singh 24. Ram Ekbal Singh 25. Ram Pratap Singh All sons of Late Ledit Singh. 26. Sri Krishna Singh, son of Dhuraahu Singh, All residents of village Multani, P.O. + P.S. Mohania, District 2 Bhabhua. 27. Ram Surat Singh, son of Shiv Lochan Singh 28. Sunil Kumar, son of Grihi Singh 29. Ganga Singh, son of Hanuman Singh 30. Shambhu Singh, son of Hanuman Singh 31. Baleshwear Singh, son of Shiv Lochan Singh 32. Ram Sagar Singh, son of Shiv Lochan Singh 33. Gorakh Singh, son of Hanuman Singh. 34. Arun Kr. Singh, son of Late Chandra Bhushan Singh 35. Ambika Singh, son of Ram Krit Singh. 36. Harihar Singh, son of Jagdish Singh 37. Haridevar Singh, S/O Jagdish Singh 38. Kadar Singh, s/o Nathuni Singh 39. Ram Surat Singh, s/o Late Shiv Lochan Singh 40. Pradip Kr. Prabhakar, s/o Ram Sagar Singh 41. Manoj Kumar Singh, s/o Gena Singh 42. Anirudh Singh, s/o Jagdish Singh. 43. Ram Pravesh Singh, son of Ramadhin Singh 44. Ram Nagina Singh, s/o Late Kapildeo Singh 45. Dinanath Singh, son of Bhagat Singh 46. Amit Kr. Singh, son of Kedar Nath 47. Rajdeo Singh, s/o Lalita Singh 48. Lalita Singh, s/jo Ram Parikha Singh 49. Chandrabas Devi, w/o Lalita Singh 50. Dihti Singh, son of Balbhadra Singh 51. Girija Kuer, s/o Baleshwar Singh 52. Ravi Shanker Singh, son of Baleshwar Singh 53. Cholte Lal Singh, son of Bake Ram Mastar, All resident of village Multani, P.O. + P.S. Mohania, District Bhabhua. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 6. 29.8.2011. Heard Shri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Dhanendra Choubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. The present appeal was preferred under Order 43 R 1(S) of C.P.C. against an order dated 4.6.2011 passed by learned Sub Judge-4, Bhabhua in Title Suit No.162 of 1992. By the said order, learned court 3 below had appointed receiver in respect of the suit property. Perusal of the order impugned makes it clear that receiver was appointed only for a period of two months. Order was passed on 4.6.2011. The court is of the opinion that the impugned order has already become infructuous. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the case is fixed for argument and the appellants, one way or the other, are delaying conclusion of the argument. It is not in dispute that case before the court below is fixed for argument. Since the order impugned has already become infructuous, there is no need to further keep the appeal pending. The appeal stands dismissed as same has become infructuous. While dismissing the appeal, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the argument on day to day basis so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay. The appellants are also directed to render full cooperation before the court below in 4 early conclusion of the case by the court below. With above observation and direction, the appeal stands dismissed as same has become infructuous. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)