Disposed

Rama Shankar Kuwar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 Nov 2016CWJC/12435/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an appellate order directing maintenance of status quo in a suit filed in 2006. The Single Judge declined to interfere, holding the suit pending and no dispossession occurred, while directing expeditious disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with liberty to approach Trial Court with appropriate prayer; Trial Court directed to dispose suit within six months.

Rama Shankar Kuwar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12435 of 2013

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

Rama Shankar Kuwar Son Of Manajar Kuwar

¶5

Santosh Kuwar Son Of Bacha Kuwar both Resident Of Village - Dewkuli, P.O. Shyampur, P.S. Mohamadpur, District - Gopalganj

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Home ( Spl. ) Government of Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat

¶9

Nawal Kishor Prasad

¶10

Awadh Kishor Prasad both Son of Late Raj Narayan Prasad

¶11

Vinay Prasad

¶12

Braj Nandan Prasad

¶13

Mukesh Prasad all Sons Of Late Jhulan Prasad all 2 to 6 are Resident Of Village

¶14

Dewkuli, P.O. Shyampur, P.S. Mohamadpur, District - Gopalganj

¶15

Krishna Kumar

¶16

Kunal Kumar both Son of Late Harendar Prasad

¶17

Musmat Lalita Kunwar Wife Of Late Harendra Prasad Resident Of Village - Usari, P.S. Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj, At Present - Bal Krishna Colony, Hari Vatika, P.S. Bettiah, District - West Champaran.

¶18

Anil Kunwar Son of Bacha Kunwar

¶19

Musmat Ram Kuwari Wife of Late Chandrama Kunwar both Resident of

¶20

Village - Dewkuli, P.O. Shyampur, P.S. Mohamadpur, District – Gopalganj.

¶21

.... .... Respondent/s

¶22

===========================================================

¶23

Appearance :

¶24

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶25

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Date: 15-11-2016

¶27

petitioners.

¶28

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the

¶29

The present application has been filed by the petitioners

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2013 dt.15-11-2016

¶31

¶32

assailing the appellate order by which the appeal filed by the petitioners in the injunction matter has been dismissed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the trial court on the prayer made by the plaintiffs passed the order directing the defendant-petitioners to maintain status quo over the suit property and also granted liberty to the plaintiffs to take help of the police force if such order was violated by the defendants. It has however, been submitted that the appellate court below in appeal against the said order has wrongly affirmed the order passed by the trial court failing to consider that the suit was also for recovery of possession and therefore the finding by the trial court that the plaintiffs were in possession could not have been sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has accepted that even after passing of the order by the trial court in the year 2006 and uptil now the petitioners have not dispossessed by the plaintiffs as apprehended by them.

¶34

After considering the submissions and in view of the fact that the suit has been filed in the year 2006 and has been pending since then and the defendant-petitioners as per their own case are claiming to be in possession over the suit property, this Court is not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interdicting the impugned order directing the

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2013 dt.15-11-2016

¶36

¶37

parties to maintain status quo over the suit property.

¶38

This application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court with appropriate prayer, if permissible in law, which if made, may be considered by the court in accordance with law.

¶39

The trial court however is directed to take all steps for expeditious disposal of the suit preferably within a period of six months in accordance with law.

¶40

Devendra/-

¶41

Rama Shankar Kuwar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shankar Kuwar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs Most. Manju Devi

Baidnath Mahto Vs Hari Narayan Panjiar

Birendra Prasad Srivastava Vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Sri Raju Gope

Ram Binay Kumar Vs Ram Janam Sharma and Ors.

Md. Neyaz Akhtar and Ors. Vs Bibi Rahat Parbeen and Ors.