IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4623 of 2005 Bijendra Prasad Suman @ Briju Babu, Son of Laxmi Prasad, adopted son of Late Tara Devi, Widow of late Ramautar Sah, resident of village Gaibipur @ Ranjitpur, P.S. and District Sitamarhi …… Petitioner Versus 1. Ravindra Prasad 2. Surendra Prasad 3. Bivendra Prasad @ Chotan Prasad All sons of late Mauje Lal Sah 4. Most. Yashodia Devi widow of late Devendra Prasad 5. Karan Kumar minor son of late Devendra Prasad under the guardianship of her mther Mostt. Yashodia Devi 6. Smt. Meena Devi D/o late Maujelal Sah wife of Shailendra Prasad, resident of village – Dumarwana, P.O. and P.S. Pakaridaya, District – East Champaran 7. Shambhu Prasad S/o Ramnath Prasad, resident of village Janakpur, P.S. Janakpur, District Dhanukhi Tarai Nepal 8. The State of Bihar 9. The Addl. District Judge, Sitamarhi 10. The Sub Judge 3rd, Sitamarhi …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachchidanand Choudhary, Advocate ------ 3 22.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, by filing the present writ application, seeks quashing of order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Sitamarhi in Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2000. Though, this case appears to have been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, in view of law settled by the Division Bench in Durga Devi 2 Vs. Vijay Kumar Poddar, reported in 2010(2) PLJR 954, the same is treated to be a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellate court, upon considering the prayer of the appellant that the respondent no. 1 is in the habit of disposing of the suit property by executing sale deed in favour of other persons and has sold several plots with a view to put the appellant in trouble, has directed the parties not to alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit. However, in case of urgent necessity, the concerned party would be at liberty to file a petition before the trial court for grant of permission to alienate the suit property and in such case the court will consider the prayer after hearing the parties and would pass appropriate order. It appears that the petitioner has earlier preferred a Civil Revision No. 1088 of 2004 also challenging the impugned order in this case and the order disposing of the civil revision has been brought on record as Annexure 3 which shows that after some argument petitioner sought permission to withdraw 3 the civil revision and the same was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner had argued that civil revision on merit and subsequently he had sought permission to withdraw the civil revision. However, the same order has again been challenged in this writ application. From the impugned order it is clear that the Appellate Court has only given a direction to the parties to seek permission of the Court for transferring any part of the suit land during the pendency of the suit in case of urgency and the Court would consider the same on its merit and pass an order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The same does not mean ipso facto granting permission to any of the parties. In above view of the matter, learned counsel has not been able to make out any case for interference of this Court of in the impugned order. In above view of the matter, this writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)