Kameshwar Prasad Singh And ORS v. Ayodhya Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2106 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors 2.

Rameshwar Singh 3.

Chandeshwar Singh 4.

Sidheshwar Singh Maurya 5.

Parmeshwar Pratap 6.

Sneh Prabha Mehta All Sons and Daughters of Late Suraj Singh resident of Mohalla - Gandhi Nagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Ayodhya Singh and Ors Son of Late Hanuman Singh resident of Village - Dhanpurba, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas. 2.

Usha Pandey Wife of Manoj Kumar Pandey resident of Mohalla - Paramnagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas. 3.

Mostt. Urmial Devi Kejriwal Wife of Late Raj Kishore Kejriwal 4.

Anjani Kejriwal 5.

Deepak Kumar Kejriwal Both Sons of Late Raj Kishore Kejriwal 6.

Satya Narayan Kejriwal 7.

Prabhat Kiran Kejriwal Both Sons of Late Sri Krishna Kejriwal All residents of Village - Kabirganj Madarsa Road, Punjabi Mohalla, Ward No. 10, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

8.

Smt. Ramawati Devi Wife of Keshav Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla - Paramnagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate Ms. Swati Mishra, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Pandey, Advocate Mr.Uma Kant Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Munsif 1, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 45 of

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2106 of 2017(5) dt.13-01-2026 2/2 2009, declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

3. From perusal of the impugned order dated 02.11.2017, it appears that petition of plaintiff to recall his evidence which was closed on 21.09.2016, was allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and further condition that within further two fixed dates plaintiff will conclude his evidence. The impugned order has been passed on 02.11.2017, perhaps the above stipulated period of two dates must have been elapsed till date. The evidence of both parties must come on the record for proper adjudication of the case.

4. Considering the entire facts of the case, plaintiff is directed to conclude his evidence within a period of 40 working days and subsequently defendant/petitioner is also directed to conclude his evidence within a period of four months so that the trial may be concluded within a period of six months.

5. With the above direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U