SUBODH KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unfortunate that in this matter in which the appellant argues in person, he virtually initiated his argument straightaway that he will take the High Court to the Supreme Court. This is an unusual argument which no conventional lawyer will adopt to present his case. Notwithstanding, the Court heard the appellant in person.

(2.) THE issue plainly is very simple on the two writ petitions which were connected and were before a division of the Court presided over by a learned Judge. The two petitions were C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 2000: Phool Mohammad Khan & ano. vs. The State of Bihar & ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 1977 of 2000: Veena Gupta & others vs. The State of Bihar & ors. [reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 284]. In the one writ petition the appellant is respondent no. 5 and in other writ petition the appellant is respondent no. 6. The net result of the order on the writ petitions is that the learned Judge declined to interfere on the ground that a suit has been filed by no other person than the appellant and this suit is pending. Reference of the suit has been given by learned Judge at page 7 of the order. This is Title Suit No. 252 of 2002.

(3.) EVEN before this Court, the submission on behalf of the appellant was that this Court may see the record to arrive at a satisfaction and return a finding that the documents on the basis of which the mutation was made were not bonafide and the mutation has been forged.