Ram Kumar Mishra v. Chandeshwar Jha And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12716 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Ram Kumar Mishra S/o Late Suresh Mishra Resident of Bhandarison Tola Makranda, P.S. Manigachhi, registration office and District Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Chandeshwar Jha

2. Sita Nand Jha

3. Daya Shankar Jha All sons of Late Tishwanath Jha Resident of Mauza Bhandarison tole, Makranda, P.S. Manigachhi, Registration Office and DistrictDarbhanga.

4. Shatrughan Mishra

5. Chandra Shekhar Mishra

6. Indushekhar Mishra

7. Chandrahas Mishra All Sons of Late Asharfi Mishra Resident of Mauza Bhandarson Tole, Makranda, P.S. Manigachhi, Registration Office and District Darbhanga

8. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Darbhanga

9. Arun Kumar Jha

10. Alok Kumar Jha Both Sons of Late Kameshwar Jha Resident of Mauza Bhaudarson Tole, Makranda, P.S.- Manigachhi, Registration office and District Darbhanga.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-09-2016

Patna High Court CWJC No.12716 of 2014 dt.06-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the impugned order the learned appellate court below has directed the parties to maintain status quo over the property till disposal of the suit after reversing the order rejecting the petition for injunction as filed by the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit have got title and possession over the suit lands. However the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show or establish before this Court as to how the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo shall prejudice the interest of the petitioner in any manner. After considering the submissions and perusal of the impugned order, this court does not find that any sufficient reason has been made out for interference in the impugned order by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(V. Nath, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 07.09.16 Transmission Date N.A.