Patna High CourtCWJC/6139/2013disposed

Suresh Prasad Singh v. Sri Prabhat Kumar Kanodia And ORS

2016-03-11Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.6139 of 2013 (3) dt.11-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6139 of 2013 ====================================================== Suresh Prasad Singh son of late Bhola Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageMaghra, Police Station-Dipnagar, Distt-Nalanda, at present residing at House No.184 MIG, Kankarbagh, PS-Kankarbagh, Town and Distt-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Sri Prabhat Kumar Kanodia son of Late Sri Sheo Shankar Kanodia, Resident of Lal Bazar Bettiah, PS.Bettiah, West Champaran. .... .... 1st Set Opposite Party

2. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its M.D. Housing Board, Patna.

3. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Parmandal 1, Kankarbagh, Patna-20. .... .... 2nd set Opposite Party. ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ansul, Advocate Mr. Archit Rajpal, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 11-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 as well as Respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Gone through the order impugned inconsonance with the contents of interrogatory so served (Annexure-4). After parallel scrutiny thereof, it is evident that the order impugned needs no interference.

3. Petition is found devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will co-operate with the court in having disposal of the instant Title Suit bearing No. 493/1995, preferably within three

Patna High Court CWJC No.6139 of 2013 (3) dt.11-03-2016 months. On such undertaking, the cost so imposed by the learned lower court against the petitioner is struck of.

5. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to stick to his undertaking, then in that event, the cost so imposed by the learned lower court will, automatically, be surfaced.

6. Side by side, the learned lower court is also directed to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within three months, wherein, the other respondents have also consented.

7. The stay so granted vide order dated 10.04.2013 is, hereby, vacated.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez U