ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None turned up on behalf of the respondents including the State and the names of original respondent nos. 2 & 3 have already been deleted earlier vide order dated 18.03.1998. 2. This is an application preferred mainly against Annexure-1 i.e. order dated 06th July, 1996 passed in Case No. 22 of 1996, wherein, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Piro, District-Bhojpur initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the application filed by the respondent no.-4 with respect to Plot Nos. 6074, 2508, 5767, 2043 and 5666, the lands purchased by the ancestors of the parties, who are heirs of one Dipan Roy, and the court below on perusing the application finding the dispute relating to possession over the lands causing apprehension of breach etc. initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notices upon both the sides. 3. As submitted, Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1996 was preferred against initiation of such proceeding before Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah, wherein, on 19th January, 1998 the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah adjourned the case and fixed the same on 19th March, 1998 enabling the parties to produce the copies of orders passed by this Court in connected pending writ applications preferred against the order of Joint Director, Consolidation, but instead of doing so, the instant writ application, during pendency of criminal revision, preferred which appears completely pre-matured. 4. The Revisional Court has not passed any final order and committed no wring while keeping the matter pending enabling the parties to place other connected relevant materials including the orders of this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not in a position to state as to whether Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1996 is still pending in the light of order dated 18.03.1998 stating the operation of the orders as contained in Annexures-1 & 2 or in the absence of any communication etc., it is disposed of. 6. In the event of such revision pending, the petitioner may produce the required documents and seek proper order. 6. In the event of such revision pending, the petitioner may produce the required documents and seek proper order. But, in case, no such revision is pending, the petitioners are at liberty, if so wishes, to place all the relevant materials before the court below i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Piro, District-Bhojpur in the proceeding and seek appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. Under the facts and circumstances stated above, Interlocutory Application No. 2104 of 2008 filed with Vakalatnama of heirs and legal representative of petitioner no. 2, Parsuram Singh, who said to have been died on 12.01.2004. Further indicating the death of original respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9, respectively, Bishnu Singh on 01.12.2001, Bachchu Singh on 12.01.2004 and Lakshuman Singh on 11.11.2005 leaving behind their respective heirs and legal representatives proposed to be substituted in their places. Hence, the Interlocutory Application No. 2104 of 2008 is allowed. Further there appears no need to notice upon the substituted heirs of the original respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 in this application in view of the fact that without any adjudication on merit this writ application is being disposed of with observation stated above. 8. Further, taking into consideration the lapse of 17 odds years without any substantial progress, the court below (as the case may be) is expected to proceed expeditiously and dispose of the petitions, if any, filed by the petitioners in accordance with law at the earliest. With the above observation, this writ application stands disposed of. 9. As prayed for, let this order be communicated to the courts below i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Piro, District-Bhojpur and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah through FAX at the cost of the petitioners.