IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16542 of 2010 1. YOGENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH R/O BHABUA WARD NO.3,P.O.BHABUA, P.S.BHABUA, DISTT-KAIMUR (BHABUA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAIMUR AT BHABUA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAIMUR (BHABUA) 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BHABUA, KAIMUR 4. CIRCLE OFFICER BHABUA 5. OFFICER INCHARGE BHABUA 6. SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH R/O BHABUA WARD NO.3,P.O.BHABUA, P.S.BHABUA, DISTT-KAIMUR (BHABUA) 7. PRATIK KUMAR S/O SHURENDRA SINGH R/O BHABUA WARD NO.3,P.O.BHABUA, P.S.BHABUA, DISTT-KAIMUR (BHABUA) ----------- 2. 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 90 of 2003, for partition filed by his own brother respondent no. 6. Respondent no. 7 is the petitioner’s nephew. Respondent nos. 6 and 7, reside on the ground floor. The petitioner resides on the first floor. The petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Sub-Judge that there were two hand pumps at the ground level, one being used by the petitioner and the other by the respondent nos. 6 and 7. The respondents had blocked the hand pump used by the petitioner, filling sand, and therefore the petitioner desires to install a boring for water supply to his first floor premises. A copy of the order dated 2 6.11.2007, passed by the Trial Court has been placed before the Court for perusal. The petitioner sought a direction to the Police to ensure that no obstruction was created by the respondent nos. 6 and 7 in installation of the hand pump. The respondents 6 and 7 in their reply stated that subject to their window and verandah not being disturbed, they had no objection to the petitioner installing the boring. The Court recorded that the respondents 6 and 7, had acknowledged that they shall not obstruct in installation of the hand pump and had given an undertaking to the Court. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to allow the application for Police presence to ensure installation of the boring. The petitioner came to this Court in Civil Revision No. 141 of 2008. This Court again noticed that the respondents 6 and 7 were taking the stand that they had no objection. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the District authorities to facilitate putting up of the hand pump for his personal use. The use of the hand pump is a misnomer as obviously a hand pump cannot be installed in the first floor and it has to be piped supply for a boring. Learned counsel submits that he wishes to install the boring from his own resources and does not 3 require any technical or financial help from the State authorities. He however submits that contrary to the assurance given by the respondents 6 and 7 before the trial Court and this Court when he actually goes to start work, they are creating obstruction. If respondent nos. 6 and 7 had given an undertaking and an assurance to the Court as it appears from the order dated 6.11.2007, and they were breaching the same, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to invite the trial Court’s attention to the same and then seek appropriate orders and/or directions in the changed circumstances of the order dated 6.11.2007. If any such application has been filed, naturally the same is required to be considered by the Court of the Sub-Judge, Ist Kaimur at Bhabua and after hearing the parties to be disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)