The Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition challenging an order in Title Suit No.85 of 2011. The court upheld the impugned order directing the petitioners to maintain status quo while they were in possession of the disputed land.
Civil miscellaneous petition dismissed as devoid of any merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1072 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Plaintiffs/Petitioners
Versus
... ... Defendants/Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.K. Roy, G.P.18 For Res. Nos.4 & 5 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate Ms. Mamta Vijaya, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
3 06-12-2018 Heard both sides.
The petitioners have filed this civil miscellaneous
petition against the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by Fast Track Court-I, Buxar in Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2016 whereby the learned Additional Judge, F.T.C.-I, Buxar modified the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the learned Munsif, Buxar in Title Suit No.85 of 2011 and directed the plaintiffs to maintain status quo.
The petitioners are the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of occupancy right and cancellation of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1072 of 2017(3) dt.06-12-2018 2/3
settlement made in favour of defendants no.4 and 5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants filed injunction petition but the learned Munsif vide order dated 15.02.2016 directed both parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit land. The plaintiffs filed Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2016 and the learned Additional Judge modified the order passed by learned Munsif to the extent that since the plaintiffs are in possession of the land and, therefore, they are directed not to change the status of the land during the pendency of the suit by order dated 16.03.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have got their house and huts on the disputed land and they are residing therein, therefore, the status quo order should not have been issued against the petitioners and the order is erroneous but from perusal of the order it appears that the petitioners claimed his occupancy right by virtue of their long possession over the land although the record of rights of the disputed land is standing in the name of State of Bihar and the State of Bihar settled the land in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 but since the petitioners were found in possession of the land, the learned Additional Judge directed the petitioners-plaintiffs not to change the nature of the suit and maintain status quo thus,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1072 of 2017(3) dt.06-12-2018 3/3
I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order.
Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is
dismissed as de void of any merit.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
S.KUMAR/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order directing petitioners to maintain status quo in a title suit is erroneous or liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioners have established illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
Gauri Shankar Prasad
Sunil Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar through the Collector, Buxar
Umashankar Singh
Geeta Devi
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
