IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2934 of 2005 1. RAM DHARI YADAV son of late Mansi Yadav 2. Nawal Yadav son of late Prem Yadav 3. Anirudh paswan son of late Darpi Pasawan 4. Amrendra Yadav son of late Mohan Yadav All are resident of village Kusaha Tola, Machana, P.S. Triveniganj, District Supaul. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Jitendra Kumar Arvind son of late Shiv Lal Prasad Yadav, Resident of village MachahaP.S. Triveniganj, District Supaul …..Respondents. ----------- 2 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.C. to S.C-12 appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar. 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition questioning the validity and legality of order dated 28.2.2004 (Annexure-10)passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 1995 by the learned Additional District Judge, Supaul, affirming the order dated 8.5.1995(Annexure-8) passed by learned Munsif, Supaul, rejecting the prayer for injunction made by the plaintiff- petitioners in terms of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. From the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioners has filed Title Suit No. 15 of 1994 for declaration that the suit land is a road (Passage) and also for issuance of mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful utilization of the suit land by the plaintiff-petitioners besides other. Learned Trial court, by a reasoned and speaking order rejected the prayer for injunction by an order dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure-8). The petitioners, being 2 aggrieved, preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 1995 and the lower appellate court refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court and has dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of plaintiff-petitioners. 4. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that almost 17 years have elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the prayer for injunction has been rejected by both the courts below by recording a concurrent findings of facts. After such a long time, this Court is not inclined to disturb the position of the suit land by issuing an order of injunction. However, interest of justice will be sub served if the parties are directed to maintain status quo as obtaining today and title suit itself is directed to be disposes of within a reasonable period of time. 5. Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed that Title Suit no. 15 of 1994 be taken up on priority basis and all endeavours should be made to dispose it of in accordance with law at an earliest possible time. The title suit must be finally disposed of within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. Till disposal of title suit, status quo as obtaining today, shall be maintained by the parties with respect to the suit property. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) 3