Patna High CourtC.Misc./1267/2018dismissed

Shanti Devi, v. Tarkeshwar Sharma

2019-06-21Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1267 of 2018 ====================================================== Shanti Devi wife of Ram Chandra Noniya, resident of village-Nawalpur, P.O and P.S.-Siwan, District- Siwan ... ... petitioner

Versus

1. Tarkeshwar Sharma son of late Bhola Sharma

2. Surendra Prasad Singh son of late Binda Singh

3. Ashara Devi wife of Yogendra Singh

4. Raj Kumar

5. Abhishek Kumar

6. Amit Kumar Respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 are resident of Ramdeo Nagar, Mahadeva, District- Siwan.

Respondent nos.1 to 6 are resident of Ramdeo Nagar, Mahadeva, District- Siwan.

7. Lalan Noniya

8. Ashok Noniya

9. Chhatial Noniya

10. Saanjay Noniya Respondent nos. 7 to 10 are sons of Late Mahadeo Noniya

11. Triloki Noniya

12. Gautam Noniya Respondent nos.11 and 12 are sons of Sudama Noniya

13. Sonamati Noniya daughter of Sonmati Noniya

14. Krishnamati Devi daughter of late Mahadeo Noniya

15. Shanti Devi wife of Ram Chandra Noniya Respondent nos.7 to 15 are resident of Kagzi Mohalla and Respondent no.15 are resident of Mohalla- Nawalpur, P.O.-Siwan, P.S.-Siwan, District- Siwan .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-06-2019 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Siwan in Title Appeal No.101 of 2013 whereby while granting adjournment to the petitioner for fifteen days, he

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1267 of 2018(2) dt.21-06-2019 2/2 has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the trial has proceeded and the order impugned has already taken its effect, this application has become infructuous.

In view of the submission made above, the application is disposed of as infructuous.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md. S/- U