Order Per D.N. Patel, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the notice, issued by this Court dated 28th February, 2011, all the necessary requisites have been deposited with this Court and the notices have been issued by this Court but the registered AID cover have been returned by the Postal Department, on the ground that the addresses are incomplete. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that on the basis of totally immoral agreement, the whole suit being Title suit No. 48 of 2006 has been filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs), who are influential and powerful persons and have invested the amount in litigation or in a dispute in urban land• ceiling matter and on the basis of totally illegal and immoral agreement, which is not enforceable, a Title Suit has been instituted and when the petitioner wanted to file amendment in the written statement, it has been rejected by the learned trial court, mainly on the ground of delay and on the ground that the evidences have already been started. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (original defendant) submitted that the socalled agreement, on the basis of which the Title Suit has been instituted,• if analyzed, it would appear that it is an agreement to manage the Government officials, so that more units under the Urban Land Ceiling Act may be given to the holder of the property, in question, and the benefit instead of going to the holder of the property. in question, will pass on to the respondents/original plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 48 of 2006. The so-called agreement is thus, an immoral and illegal agreement, which has been entered into only for managing the Government officials and, therefore, the written statement is required to be amended. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 is present and submitted that though the notices under registered cover with AID have been returned to the High Court, from their private sources, they have come to know that the matter has been fixed for today. He is not appearing for respondent nO.1 and for him still the returned cover is relied upon. 5. It appears that respondent nos. 1 and 2 both are knowing about the proceedings of this Court. He is not appearing for respondent nO.1 and for him still the returned cover is relied upon. 5. It appears that respondent nos. 1 and 2 both are knowing about the proceedings of this Court. Respondent NO.2 has now appeared before' the Court though the notice under registered cover with AID has been returned to the High Court for incomplete address and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is seeking time to get instructions. 6. I hereby issue fresh notice upon respondent no. 1 on the same address, as has been given in Title Suit No. 48 of 2006. This notice will be served by the Head of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station. Post Office-Hehal. District-Ranchi and I hereby direct the Registry of this Court to send notice of this Court to the Head of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station and the Head of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station will be responsible for serving the notice upon respondent no.1 before the next date of hearing. If respondent no.1 is not available, report will be made by the Head of the aforesaid Police Station to this Court. Necessary requisites etc. will be deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court within a week's time. 7. Notice is made returnable on 2nd May, 2011. 8. Meanwhile, I hereby stay the further proceedings of Title Suit No. 48 of 2006, pending before the learned Sub-Judge-II, Ranchi. 9. The Registry will utilize the returned copy of the notice of respondent no. 1.