Patna High Court - Orders
Balram Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 October, 2016
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1451 of 2010
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8255 of 2010
======================================================
Balram Singh
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
And
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
8. 03-10-2016The dispute is essentially between two brothers i.e. Balram Singh, the appellant, and Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, who is respondent in this appeal.
The appellant has chosen not to appear today. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 points out that his absence is deliberate. It appears that there was a property which had been divided amongst the two brothers. When Balram Singh, the appellant, started some construction, objections were raised by respondent no. 9, Shyam Bihari Singh. Shyam Bihari Singh had already instituted a Title Suit, being Title Suit No. 453/1998, which was pending before the Sub-Judge-IV, Patna. Objections were filed before the Patna Regional Development Authority (in short the "PRDA") which noticed the title suit and did not Patna High Court LPA No.1451 of 2010 (8) dt.03-10-2016 2 directly interfere in the matter, but directed that further constructions should be stayed.
The title suit was, ultimately, decreed in favour of respondent no. 9, Shyam Bihari Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid, PRDA took some actions. The appellant Balram Singh then filed a Title Appeal, being Title Appeal No. 10/2006, which is pending before A.D.J.- II, Patna, for disposal over last decade. On the strength of the pendency of this Title Appeal, Balram Singh, then, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the authorities of the PRDA in the Vigilance Case. The writ petition was dismissed on 27.08.2010, and hence, this appeal by Balram Singh.
When this matter was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court directed the Additional District Judge-II, Patna, to dispose of the title appeal expeditiously as it had been pending for over a decade. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 submits that the appellant in Title Appeal, who is the appellant herein also, stopped attending the case i.e. the Title Appeal, and ultimately the learned Additional District Judge-II, Patna fixed date for judgment. On the day when the judgment was to be passed, the Patna High Court LPA No.1451 of 2010 (8) dt.03-10-2016 3 appellant appeared and prayed for time to argue his case. But, then, on the next day, he was not appearing. In this appeal i.e. Letters Patent Appeal also, having obtained stay, he is not appearing. The only reason is to delay and prolong the stay on the basis of pendency of the Title Appeal.
We had called for a report from the learned Additional District Judge and he had stated that the case had been fixed for judgment on 24.08.2016, but as noticed above, it has further been adjourned on the prayer of the appellant.
The conduct of the appellant clearly shows that, on some pretext or other, or, some pretence or the other, he does not want the Title Appeal to be disposed of, nor does he want that this appeal be disposed of, as he is enjoying the stay by virtue of the two proceedings.
We would, accordingly, direct the Court or successor Court, as the case may be, to take up the matter on the date fixed after hearing the matter, whether appellant appears or not dispose of the matter without any further delay and send a report thereof to this Court along with copy of the judgment passed therein. Patna High Court LPA No.1451 of 2010 (8) dt.03-10-2016 4
Put up this matter after receiving report from Additional District Judge-II, Patna.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/-
U