IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12033 of 2010 1. GAURISHANKAR TEBREWAL S/O LATE BISHWANATH PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- TELIPATTI, MOTIHARI, P.O. AND P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. MANOHAR PRASAD S/O RAM CHANDRA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- TELIPATTI, MOTIHARI, P.O. AND P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 2. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD S/O LATE DINANATH PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- TELIPATTI, MOTIHARI, P.O. AND P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 218 of 2008, pending before the Sub-Judge, Motihari, aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2010. By the impugned order the prayer of the petitioner to stay further proceedings in Compulsory Registration Case No. 4 of 2008/78 of 2009 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the signature of the petitioner on the sale deed was obtained under duress. The petitioner has filed the suit for annulment of the sale deed. The impugned order states that the execution of the sale deed is admitted by the petitioner. Whether the execution done by the petitioner was obtained forcibly or it was voluntarily is a matter to be decided in the suit itself. The respondents had also 2 filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 that the petitioner had negotiated a sale with others. The Court holds that there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order as even if the sale deed is registered and the assertions of the petitioner are found true during trial, the consequences to his benefit shall naturally ensue. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)