IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1767 of 2010 1. PAWAN KUMAR SINGHANIA S/O LATE MAHALIRAM SINGHANIA R/O PATEL BABU ROAD,P.S. KOTWALI,IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 2. THE S.D.O. BHAGALPUR 3. THE OFFICER-IN- CHARGE SABOUR P.S., BHAGALPUR 4. THE SABOUR COLLEGE SABOUR, BHAGALPUR, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL 5. THE PRINCIPAL SABOUR COLLEGE SABOUR, BHAGALPUR(TILKAMANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY) 6. THE REGISTRAR, TILKAMANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY BHAGALPUR 7. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 8. THE SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI 9. ASHOK KUMAR SINGHANIA S/O LATE MAHALIRAM SINGHANIA R/O PATEL BABU ROAD, P.S.KOTWALI,DISTT-BHAGALPUR 10. ANIL KUMAR SINGHANIA S/O LATE MAHILIRAM SINGHANIA R/O PATEL BABU ROAD , P.S.KOTWALI,DISTT-BHAGALPUR For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Mohan, Adv. For the Union of India: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Adv. For the State: J.S. Arora, S.C, VI. For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, Adv. ----------- 2/ 04/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7-8. Title Suit No.173/93 was filed by the petitioner against the Union of India before the Munsif first at Bhagalpur. It came to be remanded to the court of Munsif in Title Appeal No.5/96 by the court of the District Judge at Bhagalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he only desires expeditious disposal of the suit after remand. In the meantime, he seeks interim protection of status quo vis-à-vis private respondents 4 2 and 5. The private respondents had filed an application for impleadment as parties in the title suit which was rejected as far back as 30.8.1995. Nonetheless, they were seeking to disturb the possession of the petitioner when he does not have any difficulty at the hands of the Union of India with regard to the suit lands. Since private respondents 4 and 5 are not parties to the suit, he is handicapped in seeking directions against them before the trial court. In view of the pendency of the title suit other remedies are barred. If the title suit is between the petitioner and the Union of India and the petitioner is being disturbed, as he alleges, by a person who is not a party to the suit, the suit cannot be an impediment to any other appropriate proceeding in accordance with law that can be instituted by the petitioner vis-à-vis such non-party to the suit. In that event any such application shall have to be considered and disposed off on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the pendency of the title suit. The Court finds it difficult to pass any generalized orders of a nature granting status quo when the petitioner has adequate remedy for the purpose against a party to the suit before the trial court. He himself acknowledges that he apprehends no ill-will 3 from a party under the suit. The writ application is disposed with the aforesaid observations. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)