IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2324 of 2007 Binod Pandey, Son of Late Bhairo Pandey, resident of Village Banawa Tola, PS Chanpatia, District West Champaran .....Petitioner (Defendant no.1 before court below) Versus 1. Bhuneshwar Pandey son of late Bhairo Pandey, resident of Village Banawa Tola, PS Chanpatia, Dist.West Champaran 2. Smt.Dharmawati Devi daughter of late Bhairo Pandey wife of Umakant Mishra, resident of village Pokharia, PS Chanpatia, District West Champaran 3. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra son of Shri Jagdish Mishra 4. Anupam Prakash son of Awadhesh Mishra 5. Renu Prakash dauther of Awadhesh Mishra 6. Abhishek Prakash son of Awadhesh Mishra 7. Ahinav Pakash son of Awadhesh Mishra - All residents of village Chaubey Tola PS Chanpatia, District West Champaran (Plaintiffs before the court below) 8. Smt. Prathibha Devi daughter of Bhairo Pandey wife of Vijay Kumar Tiwari, resident of village Basantpur, PS Chanpatia, District West Champaran 9. Smt. Bittu Devi wife of Binod Pandey D/o Shri Jai Narayan Chaubey 10. Himanshu Kumar Pandey, minor son of Binod Pandey through his natural guardian and father Shri Binod Pandey son of Late Bhairo Pandey - Both resident of village Banawa Tola, PS Chanpatia, District West Champaran (Defendants before the court below) ........Opp. Parties ----------- 04- 18/10/2011 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar No.1 for the petitioner. Defendant no.1 of Partition Suit no.254/2000 has preferred this application under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the validity of the order dated 18.9.2007, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge Ist, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby their application to alienate 5 kathas of the suit property for legal necessity has been 2 rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The present civil revision application arises out of a partition suit. Law is well settled that, if a lis has been admitted for final adjudication, then it becomes the duty of the court to preserve the subject matter of the same by an appropriate order so that the same is available at the time of final disposal, and the decree does not become a barren one. In that view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the learned trial court in declining to grant permission for alienation of a portion of the suit property is in our view a valid exercise of discretion. If such sale were permitted during the pendency of a partition suit, it may encourage the other parties to file similar application. 3. We do not find any merit in this civil revision application. It is accordingly dismissed. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )