← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/16881/2010disposed

Md.Mokhtar Khan v. Imamuddin Khan And ORS

2015-06-23Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16881 of 2010 ====================================================== Md.Mokhtar Khan , son of Imamuddin Khan resident of Village Kaler, P.S.Kaler, Distt. -Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Imamuddin Khan son of Late Shahban Khan resident of Village Kaler, P.S.Kaler, Distt. -Arwal ... defendant / appellant/ respondents

2. Md. Wakil Khan , son of Imamuddin Khan resident of Village Kaler, P.S. Kaler, Distt. -Arwal ... defendant 1st set / respondent

3. Md. Shakil Khan

4. Md. Kafil Khan Both sons of Imamuddin Khan resident of Village Kaler, P.S.Kaler, Distt. - Arwal .....defendant 2nd set / respondents .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md.Gayasuddin Khan For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-06-2015 Heard Mr. Md. Gayasuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been preferred against an order dated 25.9.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Section Judge, Fast Track Court - 1st, Jehanabad, in Title Miscellaneous Appeal No.7 of 2004. The said Appeal was preferred against an order passed by the learned Sub Judge -1st, Jehanabad in Title Suit No. 72 of 2002, directing for maintaining status quo by both the parties. The said Appeal was finally disposed of setting aside the order of interim injunction and matter was remitted back to the court below for disposal of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16881 of 2010 (7) dt.23-06-2015 2/2 original Suit. Earlier, time was granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instruction regarding the status of the case before the court below. However, despite his best efforts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to get any instruction.

Keeping in view the fact that the matter is in relation to injunction and an order which was passed long back in the year 2007, the court is of the opinion that by of efflux of time, no positive order is required to be passed in the present writ petition.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U