Babuchand Saw And ORS v. Lalmuni Devi And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.11103 of 2014 (2) dt.19-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11103 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Babuchand Saw son of late Ram Khelawan Sao

2. Jai Prakash Prasad @ Jai Prakash Sao

3. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sao, Both son of Babuchand Saw

4. Ramjee Sao

5. Laxman Pd. @ Laxman Sao

6. Arjun Sao

7. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Sao Petitioner no. 4 to 7 are sons of Late Sadhu Sao All are residents of village Merhma, P.S. Karai Parsurai, District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. Lalmuni Devi w/o Bakhori Sao d/o Late Ganauri Sao

2. Bakhori Sao son of late Lahma Sao

3. Rajesh Sao son of Bakhori Sao

4. Manju Devi w/o Rajesh Sao All are resident of village- Lodipur P.S. Bhudarupur District- Patna. At present resident of village Merhma P.S.- Karai Parsurai, Distt. Nalanda .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 19-07-2016 No body appears on behalf of the petitioners when this application has been called out.

The learned counsel for the respondents is present.

From the perusal of the impugned order and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it is demonstrably clear that the suit is at the stage of argument wherein the argument on behalf of the defendant has already been completed. It further appears that at that stage the prayer

Patna High Court CWJC No.11103 of 2014 (2) dt.19-07-2016 has been made on behalf of the plaintiff for getting a document marked as exhibit in the suit. The learned court below has found that the similar prayer on behalf of the plaintiff has been rejected earlier on two occasions. It has also been observed that the petition has been filed by the plaintiff with intention to delay the disposal of the suit. The learned court below has therefore declined the prayer to grant the prayer as made by the plaintiff. In the aforesaid background, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The application is accordingly dismissed.

(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U