IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2270 of 2002 BHOLA THAKUR, SON OF LATE RAUDI THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PARASAUNI MAILWAR, P.S.-PARASAUNI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ……………………………………………………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BELSAND, SITAMARHI. 5. THE NAZIR, CIVIL COURT, SITAMARHI. ……………………………………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 5. 15.4.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. It is really unfortunate that the State, which is protector of law, has chosen to be on the wrong side and has defied the decree of civil court. The decree of the civil court in terms of the judgment dated 5.10.1994 in Title Suit No. 45 of 1988 is still awaiting execution levied by the petitioner in the year 1996 by Execution Case No. 1/1996 before the Additional Munsif, Sitamarhi. The plea of the learned counsel for the State that in case the aforesaid decree is executed the State Vetanary dispensary/ hospital in village Parsauni will have to be dismantled and/or removed can hardly be any consideration when the authorities of the State, particularly the Collector of Sitamarhi District and the Anchal Adhikari, 2 Belshand Anchal did not choose to even contest the suit and left the matter unattended after filing of the written statement. If this is the way the State is going to defend its property, at least it cannot come out to resist the judgment and decree of the civil court which stands affirmed on account of dismissal of the appeal again only on account of its being barred by limitation. Counsel for the State at this stage would submit that since the land was already transferred by the Collector of Sitamarhi District to Animal Husbandry Department and that the Animal Husbandry Department or the authorities, who had constructed the State dispensary over the same were not made parties to the suit. In the opinion of this Court even that will not make the decree of the Civil Court unexecutable because in that case the remedy, if any, for Animal Husbandry Department was to approach the executing court in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure but even that has not been done. This Court, however, by taking the 3 larger public interest into account would give one indulgence and if such an application is filed by the Animal Husbandry Department within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, the executing court will ensure that the same is disposed of in a period of next four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The executing Court in the event of such an application filed in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. by the Animal Husbandry Department and/or the authorities In-charge of State Vetanary Dispensary, whose interest could not have been defended either by the Collector or the Anchal Adhikari, after the transfer of the land to Animal Husbandry Department and the construction of the hospital over the same, will examine the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of filing of such an application. The executing Court depending on the outcome of the aforesaid application of Animal Husbandry Department, will take consequential steps for execution of the decree and such 4 execution case of the petitioners must be disposed of within three months from the date of passing of the order on the aforesaid application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/