DHIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the parties and in view of order dated 31.1.2012, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 907 of 2010 as also I.A. No. 3982 of 2011 and I.A. No. 6707 of 2011 were taken up together for hearing and final disposal. The appellant Shri Dhirendra Kumar, a practicing advocate, appearing in person, and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, were heard extensively for 2 days.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant herein (referred to as "appellant" in short) has filed the present Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the C.P.C.") questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 6.9.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 335 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge-XII, Patna, whereby prayer made on behalf of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction with respect to suit property has been rejected.

(3.) Short facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal, are that Title Suit No. 335 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant, and is pending trial in the court of learned Subordinate Judge-XII, Patna, seeking a declaration that his removal from the suit property, i.e., MIG house No. 237 (double storied) situate at Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, in the town of Patna, was illegal and he is entitled to be re-inducted in the suit house by the process of the court. Besides that, other incidental reliefs have also been prayed for. Aforesaid Title Suit No. 335 of 2006 has already been admitted by the learned Subordinate Judge-XII, Patna. Defendant no. 1 Bihar State Housing Board-respondent no. 1 herein (referred to as "respondent no. 1" in short) and defendant no. 7 Smt. Neena Prasad-respondent no. 2 herein (referred to as "respondent no. 2" in short), have already filed their separate written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on various grounds and have prayed for its dismissal. However, defendant nos. 2 to 5, who are the legal heirs and representatives of late Anil Kumar Sinha, the original allottee of the suit property, as also defendant no. 8, have chosen neither to appear in the suit nor to file written statement on their behalf. Hence, the learned Subordinate Judge-XII, Patna has already passed order directing therein that suit shall proceed ex-parte against those non-contesting defendants. As a matter of fact, respondent no. 2 is the main contesting party in the said Title Suit as also in the present appeal.