IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.179 of 2009 SMT. PAN KUER, W/o Hari Narayan Mahto, R/o Village – Sinduar, P.S. – Chandi Distt. – Nalanda……………….……Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. MANJU DEVI, W/o Late Bharat Pd., R/o Village – Sinduar, P.S. Chandi, Distt. – Nalanda, 2. Shanti Devi, W/o late Ram Chandra Pd., R/o Village – Harpur, P.S. Chandi, P.O. Bhathar, Distt. – Nalanda, 3. Dulari Devi, W/o Ramni Pd., R/o Village – Madhopur Dih, P.S. Madhopur, P.S. – Chandi, Distt.- Nalanda, 4. Shankuti Devi, W/o Raja Ram Pd., R/o Village – Dallu Bigha, P.O. Chikros, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt. Nalanda, 5. Kamla Devi, W/o Surender Pd., Village – Gaurahapar, P.S. & P.O.- Chandi, Distt. Nalanda, 6. Kumari Snahlata, W/o Shyam Sunder Pd., R/o Village – Waj Chaparua, P.O. – Annaypur, P.S. – Noor Sarai, Distt. – Nalanda, 7. Ramji Pd., S/o Hari Narayan Mahto and 8. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Ramji Pd., both residents of Village – Sinduar, P.S. – Chandi, Distt. Nalanda….Defendants-Respondents-Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 03.03.2009. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar-1, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2008, passed by the Munsif, Hilsa in Execution Case No. 17/2000, whereby the application dated 24.5.2008 filed - 2 - by the defendant - petitioner for staying the execution proceedings has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 21.05.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2000 arising out of Title Appeal No. 22/1993 (Annexure-1), filed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 18/1988, whereby further proceedings in Execution Case No. 17/2000 were stayed by the appellate court. However, the appeal was dismissed long back. Even Misc. Case No. 1/2000, filed for restoration of the aforesaid Title Appeal also stood dismissed for default on 7.5.2008. He further submits that for restoration of the aforesaid restoration application, Misc. Case No. 1/2008 has been filed, thus, the court below should have given an opportunity to the defendant by staying the execution proceedings. The trial court, after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has come to the conclusion that the defendant - petitioner could not make out any ground for staying the execution proceedings and, thus, has rejected his prayer. - 3 - I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 06.12.2008. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )