IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11804 of 2008 Drigonmeshwar son of Late Sitaram, resident of village Hardingroad (Karantimarg) P.S. Sachiwalaya P.O. –G.P.O., District-Patna. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna. 2. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Drigonmeshwar (in person) For the respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C.to G.P.I. ------- 07/ 03.11.2010 Heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and learned counsel for the respondents-State and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to abide by the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1996 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Patna in Title Suit No.36 of 1994 between Gobardhan Lal Pujari and the State of Bihar and also for directing the respondents to hand over the possession with cost of C.S.Plot nos. 1195 and 1996 appertaining to Khata No.60, Tauzi No.5140 measuring an area of 13 decimals under Thana No.16, P.S. Sachchiwalaya in the city of Patna. 3. This case has a chequered history as one Gobardhan Lal Pujari who is claimed by the petitioner to be his brother filed Title Suit No.36 of 1994 against the State of Bihar for declaration of his title. The said suit was decreed by Subordinate Judge-I, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.1996. The said judgment and decree of the trial court has never been challenged by any one. However, in the said suit the petitioner of - 2 - this writ petitioner, namely Drigonmeshwar, was not a party. 4. However, the said Gobardhan Lal Pujari filed CWJC No.6444 of 2005 against the State of Bihar and its authorities for possession of the suit land. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.01.2006 with a liberty to move the civil court for execution of the above mentioned decree of the trial court. The petitioner of the instant writ petition, namely Drigonmeshwar, was not a party to the said writ petition. 5. Subsequently, Civil Review No.22 of 2006 was filed by Gobardhan Lal Pujari for review of order dated 12.01.2006 passed in CWJC No.6444 of 2005 on the ground that his execution case was not being entertained. The said review case was dismissed by a bench of this court vide order dated 10.07.2007, but the petitioner was left free to take recourse available in law to get the benefit of the civil court decree. In the said civil review case also the petitioner, namely Drigonmeshwar, was not a party. 6. More than one year thereafter the said Gobardhan Lal Pujari filed CWJC No.11575 of 2008 for handing over possession of the suit plots to the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. The said writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable by a bench of this court vide order dated 01.09.2008 with the same liberty as granted vide order dated 10.07.2007 while dismissing the review petition. The petitioner, namely Drigonmeshwar, was not a party to the said writ petition also. - 3 - 7. Against the aforesaid order of a bench of this court dated 01.09.2008, the said Gobardhan Lal Pujari filed L.P.A.No.764 of 2008 which was heard by a Division Bench of this court and was dismissed in limine holding that the decree of the title suit was executable and hence it cannot be said that the appellant cannot move the civil court for execution of decree dated 26.08.1996 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Patna in Title Suit No.36 of 1994. 8. In view of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this court passed in L.P.A.No.764 of 2008, the said Gobardhan Lal Pujari filed Execution Case No.19 of 2008 which is pending before Subordinate Judge-I, Patna against the State of Bihar for execution of the decree of the aforesaid title suit. The petitioner has claimed that petitioner of this writ petition, namely Drigonmeshwar, filed an application in the said execution case on 30.09.2010 for impleading him as a party and also for delivery of possession of half (6 ½ decimals) of the aforesaid two C.S. plots totally measuring 13 decimals, but the said petition is not being entertained by the executing court on the ground that no such order has been passed by the High Court in that regard. 9. Petitioner further submits that there was a partition suit bearing T.S. No.255 of 2003 in which this petitioner was plaintiff and his brother Gobardhan Lal Pujari was the defendant and the said suit was decreed on compromise and even a final decree has been prepared in the said suit on 28.06.2004 - 4 - giving specific half portions of plot nos. 1195 and 1196 to the petitioner as well as to his brother. The said decree has attained finality as it has not been challenged by any one. 10. The petitioner further submits that he had filed CWJC No.4987 of 2006 before this court for restraining the respondents authorities from demolishing the temple constructed in the year 1911 by the grand father of the petitioner in which several idols had been installed situated over the aforesaid suit land over which the right and title has already been declared in Title Suit No.36 of 1994 and also for direction to reconstruct the same and to give idols of Lord Shankarji and Lord Hanuman which were installed in the said temple and to give possession etc. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by a bench of this court vide order dated 28.08.2007 with a liberty to take appropriate steps, as may be advised to him, before the appropriate forum. 11. Petitioner also avers that thereafter in view of the aforesaid order of this court as well as in view of the judgment and decree of the trial court which is under execution in Execution Case No.19 of 2008, the petitioner namely Drigonmeshwar, filed an application on 30.09.2010 for being added as a party to the execution case and to execute the decree of the trial court by giving half portion of the suit land to each of the two brothers as per the decree of Partition Suit No.255 of 2003. The petitioner submits that the said application filed by the petitioner is not being - 5 - entertained by the executing court on the plea that no order to that effect has been received from the High Court. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the executing court, namely Subordinate Judge-I, Patna to implead the petitioner, namely Drigonmeshwar, as party to Execution Case No.19 of 2008 and if the decree of the trial court is to be executed it should be executed in favour of both the brothers, namely Gobardhan Lal Pujari and Drigonmeshwar, as per the decree of the partition suit if no objection is raised by petitioner’s brother, namely Gobardhan Lal Pujari. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)