IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.850 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20826 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Prem Chand Prasad Son of Late Gourilal, 2. Nand Kishore Sahu @ Nand Kishore Prasad Sahu, Son of SiriSaw, Both resident fo C/o New DurgaVastralaya, Harnaut Bazar. atPOP.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Ravi Shankar Srivastava. 2. S.K. Srivastava, The Deputy Manager, I/C Zone-III, Bihar State Finance Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna 3. Rajnikant, Branch Manager, Bihar State Finance Corporation, Nalanda Branch, Nalanda. 4. Ram Udit Singh, Son of Ram Briksh Singh, Resident of Harnaut Bazar, Ranchi Road, Opposite State Dispensary, AtPOPS- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. 5. Smt. Bachi Singh @ Bachi Devi, W/o Jagdish Singh, Resident of Village- Shri Chandpur, P.O.P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. 6. Smt. Ansuli Arya, Industrail Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. S.M. Tygrejon, District Magistrate, Nalanda, Biharsharif ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi - Aag 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 8 25-06-2026 Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Bihar State Finance Corporation is unrepresented. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s): “for initiating the contempt proceeding Patna High Court MJC No.850 of 2018(8) dt.25-06-2026 2/2 against the opposite parties due to non-compliance of order dated 06.10.2015 in CWJC No. 20826 of 2010.” 3. The Writ Court dismissed the petition of Ram Udit Singh (CWJC No. 20826 of 2010) with an observation that if the respondents clear the balance of the amount, the Corporation shall be doing the needful by completing the said process in their favour. 4. The contention in the contempt application now preferred by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 who are now petitioners in the contempt application that though pursuant to the said order, payments made, they also got possession but the sale deed has not been executed. 5. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners herein who were not the writ petitioners in the CWJC No. 20826 of 2010 should prefer an appropriate application detailing out the grievance under appropriate subject before the Patna High Court. 6. MJC No. 850 of 2018 stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U