IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10657 of 2010 1. Anil Kumar S/O Lallan Kumar @ Lal Babu Seth @ Kishori Sah R/O Mohalla- Kanhauliganj, Chatarbhuj Asthan, P.S. + Distt.- Muzaffarpur Versus 1. Smt. Reeta Devi W/O Late Sita Ram Sah And W/O Rup Narain Sah R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 2. Sujeet Kumar S/O Rup Narain Sah R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 3. Smt. Geeta Devi W/O Late Sita Ram Sah And W/O Bharath Bhusan Sahabadi R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 4. Nasareen Begum W/O Quaisar Saheb Siddique Samastipuri R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 5. Rajeshwari Devi D/O Rameshwari Devi R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 6. Poonam Kumari D/O Rameshwari Devi R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 7. Lallan Kumar Sah @ Lal Babu Sah @ Seth Sah @ Kishore Sah S/O Late Chaturbhuj Sah R/O Mohalla- Kanhauli Naka Road Chaturbhuj Asthan, P.S.- Mithanpura, P.O.- Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ---------------------------------- 3. 03.11.2011. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2010 passed in Partition Appeal No.5 of 2010, whereby the petition under Order 41 2 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed on behalf of the petitioner along with the respondent no.7 and some others, has been rejected. The facts of the case is that the respondent no.7 herein Lallan Kumar Sah alias Lal Babu Sah had filed Partition Suit No.158 of 1996 for partition of the suit property against the legal heirs of his uncle Sitaram Sah. The suit was decreed. The petitioner herein along with his mother, his brothers and his father, the respondent no.7, filed Partition Appeal No.5 of 2010 and which is pending consideration before the District Judge, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner earlier along with his brother had also filed a Title Suit No.5 of 2009 against the judgment and decree passed in P.S.No.158 of 1996 and for declaration of title over the suit land but these facts were suppressed by them while filing the appeal. In the meantime, the decree holder of Partition Suit No.158 of 1996, i.e respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed execution case giving rise to Execution Case No.7 of 2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner along with his brother filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 5 3 of the Code for stay of the execution proceedings and which having been rejected, hence the present writ petition. The learned court below after examining the matter has come to a conclusion that as the rights of the petitioner and his brother were fully protected by their father who also is the appellant no.5 in Partition appeal No.5 of 2010, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, his brothers or his mother on the grounds of not being impleaded in the suit filed by their father. The learned court below has also taken note of the fact that there had been concealment of facts by the petitioner and his brothers who had suppressed before the appellate court that they had also filed a title suit against the judgment and decree passed in P.S.No.158 of 1996. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit and in which it is stated that the petitioner and his brothers had deposed as plaintiff witness in the suit proceedings and yet in appeal they have mentioned that they had no knowledge of the same, which is a false statement. Learned court below taking note of circumstances has rejected the petition filed for stay of the execution proceedings. 4 I neither find any legal infirmity nor any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below. The writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)