Disposed¶5

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Ayodhya Singh and Ors.

Patna HC13 Jan 2026C.Misc./2106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; C.Misc. No.2106 of 2017; S. B. Pd. Singh, J.; quashing of interlocutory order; Additional Munsif 1, Sasaram; Title Suit No. 45 of 2009; recall of plaintiff's evidence closed on 21.09.2016; cost of Rs. 5,000/-; time-bound conclusion of trial; plaintiff to conclude evidence within 40 working days; defendant to conclude evidence within four months; trial to conclude within six months; petition disposed of; evidence of both parties on record for proper adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: the plaintiff to conclude his evidence within 40 working days and the defendant/petitioner to conclude his evidence within four months, so that the trial in Title Suit No. 45 of 2009 is concluded within six months; no quashing of the impugned order dated 02.11.2017. ¶5

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs Ayodhya Singh and Ors. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the Additional Munsif 1, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 45 of 2009, allowing the plaintiff to recall his evidence, was liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioners. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

With the above directions, the instant petition stands disposed of; the impugned order was not quashed.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff is directed to conclude his evidence within a period of 40 working days, and thereafter the defendant/petitioner is directed to conclude his evidence within a period of four months, so that the trial is concluded within a period of six months.

¶4

Key takeaways

The evidence of both parties must come on the record for proper adjudication of the case.ratio¶3
Observation that, the impugned order having been passed on 02.11.2017, the stipulated period of two fixed dates granted therein has perhaps already elapsed.obiter¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (S. B. Pd. Singh, J., oral order dated 13-01-2026) in C.Misc. No.2106 of 2017 disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous application seeking quashing of the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the Additional Munsif 1, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 45 of 2009, by which the plaintiff's petition to recall his evidence (closed on 21.09.2016) had been allowed subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and completion of evidence within two further fixed dates. The High Court did not quash the impugned order. Noting that the stipulated two-date period had perhaps already elapsed and that the evidence of both parties must come on the record for proper adjudication, the Court directed the plaintiff to conclude his evidence within 40 working days and the defendant/petitioner to conclude his evidence within four months, so that the trial is concluded within six months. With these directions the petition stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2106 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors

¶4

Rameshwar Singh

¶5

Chandeshwar Singh

¶6

Sidheshwar Singh Maurya

¶7

Parmeshwar Pratap

¶8

Sneh Prabha Mehta All Sons and Daughters of Late Suraj Singh resident of Mohalla - Gandhi Nagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

¶9

... ... Petitioner/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ayodhya Singh and Ors Son of Late Hanuman Singh resident of Village - Dhanpurba, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

¶12

Usha Pandey Wife of Manoj Kumar Pandey resident of Mohalla - Paramnagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

¶13

Mostt. Urmial Devi Kejriwal Wife of Late Raj Kishore Kejriwal

¶14

¶15

Anjani Kejriwal

¶16

Deepak Kumar Kejriwal Both Sons of Late Raj Kishore Kejriwal

¶17

¶18

Satya Narayan Kejriwal

¶19

Prabhat Kiran Kejriwal Both Sons of Late Sri Krishna Kejriwal All residents of Village - Kabirganj Madarsa Road, Punjabi Mohalla, Ward No. 10, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

¶20

Smt. Ramawati Devi Wife of Keshav Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla - Paramnagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

¶21

... ... Respondent/s

¶22

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate Ms. Swati Mishra, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Pandey, Advocate Mr.Uma Kant Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================

¶23

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶24

5 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶25

The instant Civil Miscellaneous application has

¶26

been filed for quashing the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Munsif 1, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 45 of

¶27

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2106 of 2017(5) dt.13-01-2026 2/2

¶28

2009, declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶29

From perusal of the impugned order dated 02.11.2017, it appears that petition of plaintiff to recall his evidence which was closed on 21.09.2016, was allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and further condition that within further two fixed dates plaintiff will conclude his evidence. The impugned order has been passed on 02.11.2017, perhaps the above stipulated period of two dates must have been elapsed till date. The evidence of both parties must come on the record for proper adjudication of the case.

¶30

Considering the entire facts of the case, plaintiff is directed to conclude his evidence within a period of 40 working days and subsequently defendant/petitioner is also directed to conclude his evidence within a period of four months so that the trial may be concluded within a period of six months.

¶31

With the above direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶33

Ankit Kumar/-

¶34

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Ayodhya Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Ayodhya Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Nand Sharma Vs Shankar Ram

Smt. Janki Devi Vs Ram Lakhan Mukhiya and Ors.

Saidullah @ Md. Saidullah @ Sikandar Vs Md. Kalimullah and Ors.

Raju Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Pushpa Devi Vs Rita Sharma @ Reeta Sharma

Sanjeev Kumar @ Delivery Vs The State of Bihar