Judgment :- This writ petition is filed by the party-in-person praying for a direction against the first respondent, the State represented by Inspector of Police (Law and Order), R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai – 600 093 to return immediately to the petitioner his 0.32" Revolver, No.G-2199, manufactured by the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, the five live catridges and the original Arms Licence No.39/39/V2 to enable him to renew the Arms Licence due to expire on 312. 2005. 2. Even though the petitioner has made various factual averments and assertions about various incidents, the crux of the case filed by the petitioner is that while he was serving in the Western War Filed during the India-Pakistan war of 1971 as a Company commander, he was allotted a 12 Bore DBBL Gun through the Canteen Stores Department as per an Arms Licence dated 03.03.1972 for sports and self protection. Anticipating his protection from his enemies, he has also applied through Government for restoration of area validity Arms Licence No.39/39/V2 to the whole of Indian Union and for the grant of licence for a 0.32" Revolver as a second weapon and ultimately the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1246, dated 112. 2002 has permitted the petitioner to possess the second weapon which is the subject matter of the writ petition and the weapon was procured as 0.32" Revolver manufactured by the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur in 2004. He has made certain allegations against an Advocate in relation to some of his criminal cases filed by him against K.M.Varghese and K.M.Samuel about which he has moved Bar Council of India. He has also made certain allegations against the second respondent who was then the City Public Prosecutor in respect of some of his conducts relating to the criminal case filed by him against the said K.M.Varghese and K.M.Samuel in C.C.Nos. 1076 & 1077 of 1997 apart from C.C.No.211 of 1997. He has chosen to state that there was some conspiracy between the second respondent and the said Advocate which is not actually relevant for the purpose of this case. .3. However, the petitioner would state that due to the reason that in the subsequent criminal case in which the arms which is the subject matter of the writ petition is involved and there has been some connection in the said incident. .3. However, the petitioner would state that due to the reason that in the subsequent criminal case in which the arms which is the subject matter of the writ petition is involved and there has been some connection in the said incident. He would state that it is due to the conspiracy of the said second respondent and the Advocate, on 21.05.2005 at 19.45 hours when he was watering the plants maintained by him either side of the road in front of his house, one S.Manivannan of West K.K. Nagar with a small Pomeranian dog has picked up quarrel with him. Due to some commotion, he asked Manivannan to go away for which the said Manivannan used some unparliamentary words stating as to whether the road side is belonging to the petitioner and he caught hold of the petitioners neck and pushed him down. On seeing that the said Manivannan again aiming to blow on his head, due to provocation, the petitioner has taken out the Revolver from his pant pocket and fired a single shot in self defence in which the said Manivannan was injured in his right forearm and due to the said incident, he is threatening the petitioner. 4. The petitioner would state that it was due to self protection. He had to use the arm by grave and sudden provocation. After the said occurrence, the petitioner has lodged an First Information Report over telephone with the first respondent Inspector of Police who was known to him. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent Inspector of Police Mr.K.Chandrasekar along with Head Constable Ramamoorthy came to his house and took possession of 0.32" Revolver No.G-2199, five live catridges, one empty case and the original Arms Licence No.39/39/V2 issued on 03.03.1972 which was renewed up to 312. 2005. He has also taken the petitioner to the police Station at 20.15 hours and the petitioner has also stated about his filing of a suit and also private complaint against said Manivannan, his father and others. The petitioner was detained in police station from 20.15 hours on 21.05.2005 till the next day at about 15.30 hours. The petitioner would state that the reason for his detention in the station was due to the conduct and instigation of the second respondent. .6. The petitioner was detained in police station from 20.15 hours on 21.05.2005 till the next day at about 15.30 hours. The petitioner would state that the reason for his detention in the station was due to the conduct and instigation of the second respondent. .6. According to the petitioner, the said Manivannan, against whom the petitioner has filed many criminal cases, at the instance of first and second respondents has hatched criminal conspiracy. The petitioner would narrate that his shooting was as a matter of self defence and as per various judgements of the various courts including Honble Supreme Court of India, it is private defence. According to him, the first and second respondents in conspiracy have hatched the idea of filing criminal case against the petitioner. 7. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has filed cases against Manivannan based on the compliant given over phone. The first respondent at the instance of the second respondent, has registered a false case against the petitioner for an offence including under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code based on the complaint of the defacto complainant S.Manivannan. He would also state that the first respondent has illegally confined him through out the night on 21.05.2005 in exercise of the authority and as a result of the conspiracy. He would also state that the first respondent has failed to prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and failed to inform his wife that the petitioner was arrested and refused to prepare memo, etc. He would also state that the second respondent instructed the first respondent Inspector of police to register a false case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code which is a non bailable offence so as to arrest the petitioner without warrant and subject him to all kinds of indignities, deprivation of his liberty and fundamental rights followed by remand in judicial custody, etc. It is also stated that by virtue of publicity of the complaint against the petitioner in the news paper it resulted in defamation. At the instance of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate-in-charge, medical assistance was given to him on 21.05.2005. He would also state that there was no proper treatment. He would also state that the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was vehemently opposed by the second respondent. Therefore, it would amount to criminal conspiracy. At the instance of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate-in-charge, medical assistance was given to him on 21.05.2005. He would also state that there was no proper treatment. He would also state that the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was vehemently opposed by the second respondent. Therefore, it would amount to criminal conspiracy. He would also allege that the second respondent has suppressed the illegal detention of the petitioner. He would also find fault with the second respondent who insisted for unwarranted condition for bail that the petitioner should stay at Vellore. He would also state that the second respondent has contended to keep the petitioner in custody till the disposal of the case. The petition praying for relaxation of the bail condition was vehemently opposed by the second respondent. According to the petitioner it shows vengeance on the part of the second respondent who has stated that as per the condition, the petitioner has not stayed at Vellore which resulted in the imposing of condition that the petitioner should appear before the Investigation Officer daily at 10.00 a.m. which according to the petitioner is unwarranted. .8. The petitioner has also filed a private complaint against S.Manivannan. the first respondent, Inspector of Police, K.M.Varghese, K.M.Samuel and S.Vijayakumar, Advocate, who was the defence lawyer in C.C.Nos.1076 and 1077 of 1997 under various sections namely, 120-B, 166, 167, 182, 192, 196, 201, 203, 211, 217, 219, 220, 323, 500, 506(i) and 506(ii) read with section 34 of the IPC. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.07.2005 he has handed over a letter to the first respondent requesting him to return his Arms Licence No.39/39/V2. Since there was no response, he issued another letter on 29.08.2005 by registered post for which no reply has been received sofar. The petitioner has received summons in PRC No.147 of 2005 under section 341, 324, 307 IPC read with section 30 of the Indian Arms Act requiring his presence before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet on 110. 2005. 10. According to the petitioner his Arms Lincence No.39/39/V2 is due to expire on 312. 2005 and therefore he has to apply for the renewal of the same. 2005. 10. According to the petitioner his Arms Lincence No.39/39/V2 is due to expire on 312. 2005 and therefore he has to apply for the renewal of the same. Therefore he has required to produce his 0.32" Revolver bearing No.G-2199 manufactured by the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur and the 12 Bore DBBL Gun before the Deputy Commissioner of police, T.Nagar Range, Chennai for his inspection along with the renewal application. 11. However, according to the petitioner, the first respondent is illegally detaining the arms licence with a mala fide motive. He would also mention about some other cases in C.C.No.824 of 2004 which was earlier 660 of 1991 in which the petitioner was arrayed as A.1 which according to the petitioner is second criminal case pending against him. According to him, seizure of Revolver is unwarranted and vindictive. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition as stated above. 12. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit. According to him, in respect of the said incident said to have taken place on 21.05.2005, the petitioner was arrested on the same day at 22.45 hours and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2005. He also states in the counter affidavit that as per the mahazar report, the following items were seized: .(i) NP Revolver measuring 0.32 mm .(ii) .32 S.w.L.K.f. 3 unfired bullets with the mark of .32S & W.K.K.F. (iii) 2 unfired bullets with the mark of .32 S & W.L. Geco. .(iv) 1 fired bullets with the mark of .23 S & W.L. Geco with firing pin mark .(v) Arms Licence xerox copy containing 12 pages. He would also state that he has seized only xerox copy of the gun licence and he has not seized the original copy of the gun licence. Since the petitioner is having one 12 Bore DBBL gun from the year 1972, and one Revolver from the year 2004, common endorsement has been made in the earlier gun licence. Since the petitioner is in possession of 12 bore DBBL gun, the original gun licence was not seized. The first respondent would also state that he has prepared charge sheet on 06.07.2005 and the same was filed before the Court on 22.09.2005. 13. Since the petitioner is in possession of 12 bore DBBL gun, the original gun licence was not seized. The first respondent would also state that he has prepared charge sheet on 06.07.2005 and the same was filed before the Court on 22.09.2005. 13. It is also the case of the first respondent that the seized property has been produced before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet vide B/511/05 on 25.05.2005 and in the Mahazar it has been clearly mentioned that he has seized only the xerox copy of the gun licence. The seized materials were produced before the Trial Court in Form-95 and the seized materials are now in the custody of the Trial Court and therefore, he has not seized the original gun licence. 14. The fifth respondent who was subsequently impleaded as party has also filed his counter. .15. Major K.Mathews, Party-in-person apart from illustrating the various points raised by him in the affidavit filed and the typed set of papers filed by him would submit that apart from the fact that the use of arms by the petitioner was only in respect of his self defence and therefore it cannot be treated as an offence. The licence is due to expire on 312. 2005. It is necessary that the licence must be renewed, otherwise he will be put into irrepairable loss. On the other hand the learned Government Advocate Mr.D.Srinivasan would submit that inasmuch as the prayer in the writ petition is for the purpose of handing over the Revolver apart from the live catridges of arms licence, the same cannot be granted by this court for the reason that the said materials are pending with the criminal court and the trial is yet to commence. 16. In the said circumstances, granting of licence when the matter is pending in the trial case cannot be made especially by way of writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the gun licence is concerned, he would state that the first respondent has only seized the xerox copy of the licence and he has never seized the original for the reason that the petitioner is admittedly having another gun and the endorsement on the same licence. 17. As far as the gun licence is concerned, he would state that the first respondent has only seized the xerox copy of the licence and he has never seized the original for the reason that the petitioner is admittedly having another gun and the endorsement on the same licence. 17. In view of the same, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that the material objects which are the subject matter of the criminal case cannot be directed to be handed-over to the petitioner. According to him, inasmuch as original should be with the petitioner, it is always open to him to produce the same for the purpose of any renewal in accordance with the Arms Act. On the other hand, the second respondent who appeared party-in-person would submit that the pistol which has been seized is the subject matter of the property and that has to be retained till the trial is over. He would also submit that pending the trial in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, there is no question of renewal of said licence. He would also rely upon the Arms rules especially 54(3) to contend that the pistol which is in the custody of the court cannot be handed-over to the petitioner. It is also the contention that no one of the materials which are stated in the writ petition prayer are in the custody of the first respondent and the same is in the trial court. .18. On the other hand, the second respondent, Mr.T.V.Ganesh who appeared party-in-person would submit that as far as he is concerned as the City Public Prosecutor, he has only performed his function on instruction from the police authorities and it is not correct to state that he was in collusion with anybody. As a City Public Prosecutor, his duty is to oppose the application for bail. Hence, he opposed the petition for relaxation of bail condition based on the instructions received from the police authorities only and not on vindictive and mala fide ground. He would also submit that when the subject matter is pending before the trial court, there is no question of handing over the same to the petitioner till the trial is over, especially, in the circumstances that the charges against the petitioner are under Section 307 of the IPC. He would also submit that when the subject matter is pending before the trial court, there is no question of handing over the same to the petitioner till the trial is over, especially, in the circumstances that the charges against the petitioner are under Section 307 of the IPC. He would also take this Court into various judgements to show that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be taken as self defence or private defence at all. He would also submit that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he has handed over the Revolver to the police and a mahazar has been prepared and in the Mahazar it has been clearly mentioned that he has seized only the xerox copy of the gun licence. He also vehemently opposed the various wordings made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition especially against the second respondent as if he form part of the criminal conspiracy and colluded stating that it is only defamatory in nature. He also submits that if at all there is any urgency in respect of anything which are subject matter of the criminal case under, section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is for the trial court to decide the same and not the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The trial has not been completed that the records have been called for in this case by this High Court. He would also state that it is the habit of the petitioner in accusing of advocates who have opposed the petitioner in various cases and find fault with Courts which have rendered orders against him. 19. Even though the second respondent has taken me to various parts of evidence to show that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be taken as self defence especially there is no injury, I do not propose to consider the same since the same is not the subject matter of issue before this Court. 20. The counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that under section 52 of the Cr.P.C., the police has got power to seize and deliver the same to the Court. Once the materials are delivered before the Court it is for the trial court to decide about every thing. 20. The counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that under section 52 of the Cr.P.C., the police has got power to seize and deliver the same to the Court. Once the materials are delivered before the Court it is for the trial court to decide about every thing. According to the 5th respondent, the first respondent has only acted as per provisions of law and he would also state that the petitioner has not made out any ground for the purpose of the return of the revolver. He would also submit that no writ of mandamus would lie since the first respondent has seized the Revolver admittedly used for the purpose of shooting the defacto complainant and accordingly the arms are seized in accordance with law. Therefore, writ of mandamus cannot be issued. He would also dispute the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of renewal of licence that the arms must be produced before the authorities. He would state that after the arms are seized as per Arms Rule 54(3), there is no question of renewal of the same. He would also submit that since the original licence is with the petitioner, there is no question of calling for the xerox copy of the same. 21. I have heard the party-in-person, who is the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also the second respondent appearing in person and perused the entire records. 22. At the outset, it is relevant to point out that this Court by order dated 25.01.2006, directed the Registry to call for the entire records in respect of PRC No.147 of 2005 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for perusal of this Court. Accordingly, the records from the trial Court have been received. I have perused the original records. The mahazar report dated 22.05.2005 which forms part of the records duly signed by the mahazar witnesses show that the following materials were seized: "1. hpthy;th; - xd;W "NP, REVOLVER 0.32 MK-1 S.A.F.KANPUR, 2004, G 2199, QC OK" "IOF" vd;W vGjg;gl;l mnrhf rf;fuk; kw;Wk; Jg;ghf;fp rpd;dk; ,Ugf;fKk; bghwpf;fg;gl;lJ/ 2. "325 & W.L. K.F." vd;W moapy; bghwpf;fg;gl;l btof;fhj Fz;Lfs; (njhl;lhf;fs; moapy; bghwpf;fg;gl;l btof;fhj Fz;Lfs; -3(njhl;lhf;fs;) 3. .32 S & W.L Geco" vd;W moapy; bghwpf;fg;gl;l btoj;j njhl;lh -1 moapy; kj;jpapy; firing Pin Mark nghd;w FHp cs;sJ. 4. Arms Licence xerox copy - 1 (12 gf;f;fs;)" 23. "325 & W.L. K.F." vd;W moapy; bghwpf;fg;gl;l btof;fhj Fz;Lfs; (njhl;lhf;fs; moapy; bghwpf;fg;gl;l btof;fhj Fz;Lfs; -3(njhl;lhf;fs;) 3. .32 S & W.L Geco" vd;W moapy; bghwpf;fg;gl;l btoj;j njhl;lh -1 moapy; kj;jpapy; firing Pin Mark nghd;w FHp cs;sJ. 4. Arms Licence xerox copy - 1 (12 gf;f;fs;)" 23. Therefore, it is clear that as per the said mahazar report, apart from the said materials seized from the petitioner, it is only the xerox copy of the Arms Licence containing 12 pages which appears to have been seized. The reason given for the seizure of the xerox copy by the first respondent is that the petitioner is already having revolver from 1972 onwards and there is common endorsement in the licence and therefore, the first respondent has left the original Arms Licence of the petitioner with him and has taken only the xerox copy. Whether such reason is genuine or not is not for this Court to decide at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and it has to be left open to the trial Court to decide about the same and also to consider the reason adduced by the first respondent. But the fact remains that what was seized from the petitioner was only a xerox copy of the Arms Licence and therefore, on the face of it, the prayer in the writ petition for the purpose of return of the original Arms Licence cannot be taken into consideration, as I have stated earlier, as per the original records perused from the trial Court what was seized was only the xerox copy of the Arms Licence. Even though the petitioner would vehemently urge that what was seized from him was only the original Arms Licence and that it is not open to the first respondent to seize the xerox copy of the Arms Licence when the original arms licence is available, as I have stated earlier, it is not relevant at this stage to go into the said question of the propriety of such seizure which can only be decided by the trial Court. 24. 24. Likewise, the contention raised by the second respondent as party in person about the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner as to whether the use of the revolver was in his self defence also need not be considered at this stage, since it is for the trial Court to decide the issue. Any observation that may be made in respect of the conduct of the petitioner on the date of occurrence will only affect the right of the petitioner to defend his case before the criminal Court. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that this Court cannot go into that aspect also. 25. The further contention raised by the petitioner about various allegations levelled by him against the first and second respondent as also the fifth respondent are also not relevant for the purpose of this case. In any event, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy elsewhere and not to ventilate his grievance before this Court, while deciding the issue under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 26. Now referring to the prayer in the writ petition, the prayer is for a direction against the first respondent, who is the Inspector of Police to return the revolver, five cartridges and the original Arms Licence. 27. As far as the renewal of the Arms Licence under the Arms Act, 1959 is concerned, Rule 54(3) of the Arms Rules, 1962 reads as follows: "(3) An application for renewal of a licence for arms or ammunition deposited under sub-rule (1) of rule 47 may be made by the depositor, or where it is not practicable to make the application direct, through the dealer or any other person authorised by him in this behalf while the arms or ammunition continue to be so deposited." 28. Consequently, Rule 47(1) contemplates that a person who is in lawful possession of arms and ammunition may deposit the same for the safe custody with a dealer holding licence or in a Police Station etc. Rule 47(1)of the Arms Rules, 1962 reads as follows: "(1)(a) A person lawfully possessing arms or ammunition may deposit them for safe custody with a dealer holding a licence in Form XIV or in a police station or, if he is a member of the armed forces of Union, in a unit armoury. Rule 47(1)of the Arms Rules, 1962 reads as follows: "(1)(a) A person lawfully possessing arms or ammunition may deposit them for safe custody with a dealer holding a licence in Form XIV or in a police station or, if he is a member of the armed forces of Union, in a unit armoury. .(b) Before accepting the arms or ammunition for deposit otherwise than under section 21(1), the dealer or officer-in-charge of police station or unit armoury shall satisfy himself that they are possessed under a valid licence issued under the Act and these rules or under exemption from the need for such licence. .(c) Members of the armed forces of the Union may be allowed to keep their arms or ammunition in safe custody in a unit armoury only during the tenure of their service." 29. In the present case, the fact of the case does not show that the petitioner has deposited the revolver namely 0.32" Revolver, No.G-2199, manufactured by the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur and 5 cartridges, which is the subject matter of the criminal case and the same were seized from him in accordance with law by the first respondent and after seizure, as it is seen in the Court records, the same have been deposited with the trial Court and the said materials are now in the custody of the trial Court and not with the first respondent. On this simple ground that the first respondent is not in the custody of the revolver etc., as on today and the said materials are with the Court, the direction asked for by the petitioner against the first respondent to return the said revolver cannot be granted. 30. The next question that arise for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner has any other remedy at all. The provision of Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 451 speaks about the order of custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases and authorises the trial Court before which the criminal case is pending which is in custody of the case property to decide the issue. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: "451. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: "451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of." 31. In the present case, it is even admitted case of the petitioner that he has moved the trial Court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the property. The reason adduced by the petitioner for his inability to move before the trial Court for the purpose of prosecuting his application is that the criminal court records have been summoned before this Court and the criminal Court is adjourning the matter on this score. When once the effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no question of invoking the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. When a similar question arose, wherein a person who was accused in an criminal case has filed an application for transfer to CBI authorities for investigation, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme court reported in 1997 Crl.L.J.63 [CBI vs Rajesh Gandhi], wherein it has been held that it is not for the accused to say who should investigate the offence and also another judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1883 [H.S.Bains vs. State], holding that in such circumstances, the party has remedy available under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to conduct proper investigation, a Division Bench of this Court in a Judgement rendered in the case of Alliraj Gounder vs. The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Town Police Station, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District and another, reported in 2005(3)CTC 673 has held that when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, no writ petition can be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court headed by Markandey Katju,C.J. and Prabha Sridevan,J. has categorically held in the following terms: "6. Thus the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3), which he should avail of by approaching the Magistrate. Writ Petitions of this nature should not be entertained by this Court in view of the existence of the appropriate efficacious alternative remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code itself, otherwise this Court will be flooded with such writ petitions." 33. Therefore, it is settled law that when an effective alternative remedy is available, it is not for this Court to decide under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As I have enumerated above, the facts and circumstances of this case show that the objects seized have been deposited with the trial Court and the trial is yet to commence and in such circumstances, it is only for the trial Court to decide such issue under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially in the circumstances that the petitioner has in fact approached the trial Court by filing such application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, even though it is the submission made on behalf of the respondents that as per Rule 54(3) of the Arms Rules 1962, it is for the petitioner who should be having possession of the original licence with him to approach proper authorities and also stating that when once the materials are subject matter of criminal case, there was no question of renewal of licence, pending decision by the criminal case, without going into such controversial issues which may affect the trial in the criminal case, I am of the considered view that the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure, which he has already resorted to. 35. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable since an effective alternative remedy is available, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy available under 451 Code of Criminal Procedure. 35. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable since an effective alternative remedy is available, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy available under 451 Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the matter is pending for a long time, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case, immediately after receiving the original records from this Court, apart from taking up the application which would have been filed by the petitioner for the purpose of the custody of the property and complete the trial expeditiously, after giving opportunity to the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.