Order : D.N. PATEL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4945 of 2015. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there are several civil suits and criminal proceedings between Mangal Murmu and respondent No. 6. Mangal Murmu has filed an affidavit in this appeal on behalf of Trust in question. It further appears that respondent No. 6 in this Letters Patent Appeal, who is the original respondent No. 6 in W.P.(C) No. 4945 of 2015, was authorized by the Trust to take decision on 06.03.2011 for the land in question to deal with the Tata Steel Ltd. Thereafter, it appears that an agreement was entered into on 25.02.2012 with Tata Steel Ltd. and it is alleged by this appellant that Rupees One Crore was received in advance, which is misappropriated by respondent No. 6 as per their knowledge. It further appears that Mangal Murmu has filed an affidavit in this Letters Patent Appeal, who is one of the Trustees in Sidu Kanu Siksha Niketan Trust along with respondent No. 6. It further appears that after empowering respondent No. 6 to deal with one land with Tata Steel Ltd, respondent No. 6 has reconstituted the Trust deed itself on 30.10.2012. As per this appellant, this is an unilateral action and illegal action. It further appears that respondent No. 6 had reconstituted the Trust deed, as alleged by the appellant and therefore, the appellant had also reconstituted the Trust deed on 07.08.2013. It appears that this Mangal Murmu and respondent No. 6 are matching with each other. There are action and reaction by both the parties. Now, there are two types of reconstituted Trust deed and therefore, there are more than one civil suits, which are as under: (a) Title Suit No. 95 of 2013 filed by Mangal Murmu, who is one of the Trustees of the Trust against respondent No. 6 for restraining respondent No. 6 from operating Bank Account of the Trust and for restraining respondent No. 6 from work so that respondent No. 6 may not work detrimental to the Trust. This civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur; (b) Title Suit No. 161 of 2013 has been filed by one Kestra Mohan Tudu as Joint Secretary of the Trust for the prayers, which are made in Title Suit No. 95 of 2013. Thus, one suit is filed by Mangal Murmu and another is filed by Joint Secretary of the Trust for restraining respondent No. 6 from operating Bank Account of the Trust and for restraining him from work detrimental to the Trust. This civil suit is also pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur; (c) Title Suit No. 125 of 2013 filed by Kestra Mohan Tudu for declaration that reconstitution of the Trust deed dated 30.10.2012, which was made unilaterally by respondent No. 6, may be declared as null and void. Trust deed, which was reconstituted by respondent No. 6, as stated hereinabove, is under challenge in Title Suit No. 125 of 2013. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent No. 6 that this title suit has been dismissed for default on 23.01.2017. 3. As stated above, respondent No. 6 was empowered on 06.03.2011, by the Trust, for one of the properties of the Trust for dealing with Tata Steel Ltd. Now, respondent No. 6 has reconstituted the Trust deed itself on 30.10.2012 and as a counter action or reaction, other Trust deed was once again reconstituted on 07.08.2013 and this reconstitution of the Trust deed is challenged by respondent No. 6 in Title Suit No. 21 of 2015 with a prayer for declaration that reconstituted Trust deed dated 07.08.2013 may be declared as null and void and for recovery of the possession of the suit property where the school is running. 4. These details have been given by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. 5. It appears that prayer made in Title Suit No. 21 of 2015, preferred by respondent No. 6, which is annexed at Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, reads as under: “14. 4. These details have been given by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. 5. It appears that prayer made in Title Suit No. 21 of 2015, preferred by respondent No. 6, which is annexed at Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, reads as under: “14. Plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs: (a) Decree for cancellation the trust Deed No-IV 1114 dated 07.08.2013 which is described in scheduled ‘C’ below, interalia holding that the general body formed by and under the said deed is illegal and to dissolve it and to debar the persons taken in by and under this deed from claiming membership or any office of the body, and oust them. (b) Decree declaring that the trust body formed as reconstituted body by and under reconstituted Deed No-6082 dated 30.10.2012 which is described in schedule ‘B’ below is valid, legal and binding and the members named in the second deed turned out by and under the third deed continue to be members with their respective office as they used to hold, uninterrupted. (c) For declaration that the general body formed by and under the third deed is not entitled to possess or enjoy the immovable property mentioned in schedule ‘A’, interalia holding that the said body has no title or right to that property. (d) For declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the immovable property as mentioned in schedule ‘A’. (e) For recovery of possession of property described in schedule ‘A’ below by evicting the defendants or any body found is possession thereof through defendants. (f) For permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering or otherwise causing any disturbance into smooth running of the trust body through the members as per deed No 6082 dated 30.10.2012 or otherwise functioning as a trustee of office bearer on the basis of the third deed, described in schedule ‘c’ below. (g) To appoint a receiver, preferably a lawyer from local Bar Association, hailing from Santhal community. (h) All costs of the suit.” 6. It further appears that respondent No.6 has not filed any application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is popularly known as injunction application for getting mandatory temporary injunction for any reason whatsoever. The said civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur. 7. Now, bottleneck starts. It further appears that respondent No.6 has not filed any application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is popularly known as injunction application for getting mandatory temporary injunction for any reason whatsoever. The said civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur. 7. Now, bottleneck starts. Things, which cannot be done directly, have been done indirectly, which has given birth of W.P.(C) No. 4945 of 2015 as well as this Letters Patent Appeal. Much has been argued out on this bottleneck. 8. In the title suit filed by respondent No. 6 for getting possession of the suit property, which includes the land, on which the school, in question, is running, no application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred, but, the application was preferred by respondent No. 6 before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum for getting police protection as well as for getting possession of the school. 9. Thus, the suit is filed in a Court and application for mandatory temporary injunction is preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. Influential persons are also getting relief in such a situation. Governmental authority i.e. Sub-divisional Magistrate, namely, Alok Kumar, son of Karm Dayal Sahu, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, has not only given the protection but also has passed mandatory temporary injunction and granted possession of the school in question, which is upon the Trust property to respondent No. 6. 10. Thus, Title Suit No. 21 of 2015 is already pending, in which, though no application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred, but, for the very same prayer, respondent No. 6 preferred an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur and also for police protection, respondent No. 6 has deliberately taken a step to get possession by indirect method. Respondent No. 6 is not an illiterate person. He is party to several civil suits and criminal proceedings. Such type of action, initiated by respondent No. 6 for getting possession upon the school property ought not to have been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur or by Subdivisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur by the order dated 14.09.2015 and therefore, learned Single Judge has imposed cost of Rs. He is party to several civil suits and criminal proceedings. Such type of action, initiated by respondent No. 6 for getting possession upon the school property ought not to have been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur or by Subdivisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur by the order dated 14.09.2015 and therefore, learned Single Judge has imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the State of Jharkhand, which is recoverable from the magistrate, who has passed the order dated 14.09.2015 (Annexure-4), which is an impugned order in the writ petition. 11. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that two receivers may be appointed by the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur forthwith, who shall report to the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur, every fortnight about the management and affairs of the Sidu Kanu Siksha Niketan Middle and High School, Jamshedpur. 12. In view of these facts, we, hereby, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 14.09.2015 (Annexure-4) passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, respondent No. 4 as well as we direct respondent No. 6 to hand over peaceful possession to this appellant forthwith including key etc., which is mentioned at Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal within twenty-four hours from today, failing which, appellant is permitted to take the possession and the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur is, hereby, directed to provide adequate police force to the appellant. We also direct the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur to appoint two competent receivers, who will be the in-charge of this school management and who will supervise the management of the school, in question. This appellant will provide all the accounts to the two receivers appointed by the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur. He should obey the directions given by two receivers. 13. Observations made by this Court are only for the purpose of this Letters Patent Appeal. Title Suit No. 21 of 2015 and other title suits, as mentioned hereinabove, shall be decided by the competent civil court, on its own merit, on the basis of evidence on record, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observation of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4945 of 2015 vide order dated 22.03.2017 as well as without being influenced by the observation made by this Court in this order. 14. This arrangement is made as interim relief, during the pendency of final hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal. 15. 14. This arrangement is made as interim relief, during the pendency of final hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal. 15. Magistrate, who has passed the mandatory temporary injunction despite pendency of Title Suit No. 21 of 2015, is Alok Kumar, son of Karm Dayal Sahu. Name of the Magistrate has been given by Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General of State of Jharkhand. 16. We direct the appellant to implead the aforesaid magistrate as party-respondent No. 8. 17. Notice to the newly impleaded respondent No. 8 to be served by ordinary process, for which, requisite etc. must be filed within one week. 18. Notice is made returnable on 11th October, 2017. 19. Counsel appearing for the appellant has also placed several allegations upon respondent No. 6 including that of misappropriation of part of the amount of one crore, which he has taken by way of consideration towards the agreement dated 25.02.2012. This agreement is with Tata Steel Ltd., as per the knowledge and brief of this appellant. 20. We further direct the appellant to implead the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur as party-respondent No. 9. Necessary amendment be carried out with red ink during course of the day. 21. Notice to the newly impleaded respondent No. 9 to be served by ordinary process, for which, requisite etc. must be filed within one week. 22. It appears that respondent No. 6 though has filed a suit for getting possession of the school property, but, injunction application has been preferred before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur and that too for getting mandatory temporary injunction and no application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred in Title Suit No. 21 of 2015, though respondent No. 6 is a plaintiff. 23. Mandatory temporary injunction has been granted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur vide his order dated 14.09.2015, for which, cost has been awarded by the learned Single Judge at Rs. 50,000/-. State shall recover this amount from the said magistrate. Such type of matter ought to have been inquired in detail by the State Government through Principal Secretary of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. 24. We, hereby, direct the State Government to deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one week from today. Such type of matter ought to have been inquired in detail by the State Government through Principal Secretary of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. 24. We, hereby, direct the State Government to deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one week from today. This amount shall be recovered from the newly impleaded respondent No. 8, which will be subject to the outcome of this Letters Patent Appeal. Though the order is dated 22.03.2017, but, over generous high-ranking administrative officer has neither paid the amount nor has recovered the amount. 25. Respondent No. 6 shall not enter into the school premises, till next date of hearing. 26. This matter is adjourned to be enlisted on 11th October, 2017. 27. Copy of this order will be sent by Registrar General of this Court to, (i) Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand; (ii) Principal Secretary of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand; (iii) Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur; (iv) Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur; (v) Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals of the State of Jharkhand and; (vi) Counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondents. 28. This order will be sent initially by FAX and thereafter by Registered Post to the aforesaid Officers. Order accordingly