IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.885 of 2025 ====================================================== Kanhaiya Lal Son of Late Vishwanath Lal, Sewait of Thakur Ji Mandir Birajman, Resident of Village- Semaria, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur, Bhabhua. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. Paltu Bind Son of Late Mahabir Bind, Resident of Village- Dharmpura, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur/ Bhabhua. 2. Baleshwar Bind, Son of Late Mahabir Bind, Resident of Village- Dharmpura, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur/ Bhabhua. 3. Lochan Bind, Son of Late Mahabir Bind, Resident of Village- Dharmpura, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur/ Bhabhua. 4. Hari Bind, Son of Late Prasad Bind, Resident of Village- Dharmpura, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur/ Bhabhua. 5. Pappu Bind, Son of Late Buchuni Bind, Resident of Village- Dharmpura, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur/ Bhabhua. 6. Shivchan Bind, Son of Late Antu Bind, Resident of Village- Dharmpura, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur/ Bhabhua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Ms. Rekha Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 16-07-2026 Heard Ms. Rekha Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present application has been preferred: against the order dated 29.7.2025 passed by Smt. Hema Kumari, Civil Judge (SR Division) -I Sub-Judge, I, Civil Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title suit No. 962 of 2020 by which Title suit no. 962 of 2020 has been ordered to be abated in view of section 4 (B)/4 (C) of the consolidation of Holdings Patna High Court MA No.885 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2026 2/2 and 3 prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956 without applying its Judicial mind that the suit in question has been filed by the 2 plaintiff Appellant for "permanent injunction"" only which has nothing to do with section 4 (B) of the consolidation of Holdings and prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956 in view several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. 4. Permission accorded. 5. M.A. No. 885 of 2025 is disposed of. 6. Limitation, if any, be considered in the light of the fact that the present petition was preferred by the appellant. Vijay Singh/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U