JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Anil Kumar Sinha, J.

The present application has been filed for modification in the order, dated 06.02.2019, passed in M. A. No. 145 of 2018, by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, to the extent that the petitioner (appellant in M. A. No. 145 of 2018 and defendant in Title Suit No. 182 of 2017) be permitted to execute sale deed(s) with permission of the Court and further the Court below be directed to dispose the Title Suit No. 182 of 2017 within a period of one year from today without granting any adjournment on day-to-day basis and further in view of the fact that I. A. No. 7682 of 2018, filed in M. A. No. 145 of 2018, has been allowed, the legal heirs of respondent no. 2 in the M. A. No. 145 of 2018 be incorporated and the name of respondent no. 13 be struck off in the cause title of the order, dated 06.02.2019, as the legal heirs of respondent no. 13 are already on record as respondent nos. 14 and 15.

2. The petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act, had filed M. A. No. 145 of 2018, under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order, dated 09.01.2018, passed by the learned Sub Judge-1, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, in Title Suit No. 182 of 2017, by which the petitioner was restrained by an order of temporary injunction to make any construction over the suit land or to transfer the suit land or change the nature of the suit land.

3. The respondents, in M. A. No. 145 of 2018 (plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 182 of 2017) have filed Title Suit No. 182 of 2017, inter alia, on the fact that the suit land was their ancestral property and some fictitious person has transferred the said suit land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is going to make construction over the suit land. The relief prayed for in the suit by the respondents of M. A. No. 145 of 2018 was for declaration of the title of the suit land in favour of the respondents and also for a decree of recovery of possession. The respondents have also prayed for temporary injunction in the suit.

4. The petitioner contested the suit, inter alia, on the fact that the petitioner, being a company under the Companies Act, has purchased the suit land, through different sale deeds, executed in the year 2016 and 2017, from the recorded tenant for valuable consideration and they have been constructing duplexes/multi-storied building over the suit land and almost 80 per cent of the construction of the project has already been completed as per the sanctioned plan.

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after recording, in paragraph 11 of the order, dated 06.02.2019, passed in M. A. No. 145 of 2018, the submission of the petitioner that “However, the appellant is agreeable that if the appellant is allowed to continue with construction, it is not going to sale any of the constructed portion to anyone till disposal of the suit”, set aside the impugned order, dated 09.01.2018, passed in Title Suit No. 182 of 2017, to the extent it has restrained the petitioner from making any construction over the suit land and made it clear, in paragraphs 13 and 14, that “any construction by the appellant on the suit land would be subject to the result of the suit” and “the restraint order to the extent that the appellant would not transfer the constructed portion to anyone shall remain intact till disposal of the suit”. The co-ordinate Bench, while disposing M. A. No. 145 of 2018, has directed the learned Court below to expedite the disposal of the suit preferably within one year.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that while hearing M. A. No. 145 of 2018, the Hon’ble Court had observed while dictating order, in open Court, that any sale deed would be executed only after getting permission from the learned Court below and further observed for disposal of the suit within one year without granting undue adjournment, but when the petitioner got the web copy of the order, it came to known that the observation regarding execution of the