← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12404/2023dismissed

Nagendra Singh @ Nagendra Kishor Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-01Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12404 of 2023 ====================================================== Nagendra Singh @ Nagendra Kishor Singh, Son of Late Jagannath Singh, Resident of Village-Manjhi Tola, Gularbagh, Police Station-Manjhi, DistrictSaran, at Present resident of 68 Teigore Nagar, Phase NO.3, Khajurikalan Road, Piplani, Huzur, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462022. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Refoems, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The-Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra. 3.

The Additional Collector, Saran at Chhapra.

4.

The Circle Officer, Manjhi, Saran at Chhapra. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bauye Jee Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, AC to SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. This writ application has been filed for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Circle Officer, Manjhi, Saran at Chapra (Respondent No. 4) to pass an appropriate order in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 25.06.20022 in Title Suit Case No. 840 of 2019 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Saran.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondentState raises preliminary objection to the effect that this writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is

Patna High Court CWJC No.12404 of 2023(2) dt.01-02-2024 2/2 specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for execution of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Saran in title Suit Case No. 840 of 2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the above proposition.

5. In above view of the matter, this writ application is not maintainable.

6. This writ application is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U