Patna High Court

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and OrsversusAyodhya Singh and Ors

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: S B P SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the order was not to be quashed but instead directed fresh time‑limits for the parties to complete their evidence and thereby disposed of the petition.

Summary

The petitioners filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking to quash an order dated 2 November 2017 passed by the Additional Munsif in Title Suit No. 45 of 2009, alleging that the order was illegal, arbitrary and beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The impugned order had allowed the plaintiff to recall his evidence, imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 and fixed two further dates by which the plaintiff was to conclude his evidence. The petitioners argued that the stipulated dates had already elapsed and that the order needed to be set aside. The High Court examined the procedural history and noted that the evidence of both parties must be recorded for a proper adjudication. Consequently, the Court directed the plaintiff to finish his evidence within 40 working days and the defendant to do so within four months, aiming to conclude the trial within six months. With these directions, the Court disposed of the petition without granting the relief sought to quash the order.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 2 November 2017 passed by the Additional Munsif is illegal, arbitrary and beyond its jurisdiction.
Whether the parties should be granted fresh time‑limits to complete their evidence in the title suit.

Subjects

civil procedure
evidence
trial management
quash order
jurisdiction
title suit

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2106 of 2017
                 ======================================================
           1.     Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors
           2.    Rameshwar Singh
           3.    Chandeshwar Singh
           4.    Sidheshwar Singh Maurya
           5.    Parmeshwar Pratap
           6.    Sneh Prabha Mehta All Sons and Daughters of Late Suraj Singh resident of
                 Mohalla - Gandhi Nagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    Ayodhya Singh and Ors Son of Late Hanuman Singh resident of Village -
                 Dhanpurba, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.
           2.    Usha Pandey Wife of Manoj Kumar Pandey resident of Mohalla -
                 Paramnagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.
           3.    Mostt. Urmial Devi Kejriwal Wife of Late Raj Kishore Kejriwal
           4.    Anjani Kejriwal
           5.    Deepak Kumar Kejriwal Both Sons of Late Raj Kishore Kejriwal
           6.    Satya Narayan Kejriwal
           7.    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.
           8.    Smt. Ramawati Devi Wife of Keshav Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla -
                 Paramnagar, P.O. P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 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.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

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

                                 2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application has

                   been filed for quashing the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by

                   learned Additional Munsif 1, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 45 of
          Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2106 of 2017(5) dt.13-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                    2009, declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without

                    jurisdiction.

                                 3. 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.

                                 4. 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.

                                 5. With the above direction, the instant petition stands

                    disposed of.



                                                (S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…