IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14531 of 2011 1. Most.Maya Devi W/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta 2. Guddu Sah 3. Sarvan Kumar Both sons of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta, All residents of mohalla Purani Bazar Chowk, Sonarpatti Police Station, Town District Muzaffarpur Defendants 1st Party Judgment-Debtor …… Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Kailash Sah 2. Shri Phuldeo Sah Both sons of Shri Sukhdeo Prasad Sah, residents of village Mansurpur, Pragana Ratti, P.S. Vaishali, District Vaishali. Plaintiffs- Decree holders …….. Respondents 3. Prabha Devi W/o Onkar Nath, Mohalla Purani Bazar, At present B.M.P-6 near Kanhauli, P.S. Mithanpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 4. Smt. Meera Sharaf W/o Jai Prakash Sharaf of Saraiyaganj near Tower, Ward No. 19, P.S. Town District Muzaffarpur. 5. Smt. Anita Devi W/o Prem Shankar Prasad Gupta of Brahman Toli, P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur. 6. Smt. Uma Devi W/o Shri Nathuni Pd. Gupta, resident of New Colony, Balughat P.S. T own, Dist. Muzaffarpur. Purchasers 4 to 11 7. Shri Babulal Pd. W/o Late Mohan Pd. 8. Hiramani Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal 9. Sumit Kr. S/o Shri Babu Lal 10. Smt. Rubi Kumari W/o Shri Sujit Kr. All of village Purani Bazar, Sonar Patti, P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur. 11. Sanjay Kr. S/o Shri Asharfi Sah of Chandwara Jail Road, P.S. Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur Petitioners-co-decree holders …….. Respondents- 2nd Set 12. Kamala Devi W/o Late Asharfi Sah 13. Binod Sah 14. Dhrub Sah Sons of Late Asharafi Sah 15. Pawan SWah @ Nanhaki Sah 16. Gangotri Devi D/o Late Aswharafi Sah & wife of Laxmi Sah All of Mohalla- Mahawal Chowk, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. Respondents 12 to 25 agnates of Petitioners 17. Geeta Devi D/o Ashrafi Sah and W/o Shri Suresh Sah, Village Gobar Sahi, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 18. Most. Sapan Devi D/o Late Ramchandra Pd. Gupta. 19. Reena Kumari D/o Late Ramchandra Pd. Gupta, residents of Mohalla Purani Bazaar, P.S. Town, District- Muzaffarpur. 20. Smt. Meera Devi D/o Ram Pukar Sah 21. Most. Urwashi Devi W/o Late Laxman Pd. Gupta Defs. 1 & 4 to 7- Renters- petitioners one of them 22. Mukesh Sah 23. Manish Sah Sons of Late Laxman Pd. Gupta 24. Vikash Sah All of Mohalla Old Bazaar, Town Muzaffarpur, P.S. Town District Muzaffarpur- Defendant Ist Party 2 25. Manoj Pd. Gupta S/o Ram Pukar Sah, Residents of Mohalla- Old Town, P.S. Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur- Defendant Ist Party- Judgment Debtors- …. Respondents 3rd Set Defs. 2 & 3 agnates Of Defs. 1 & 4 to 7 26. Most. Kushama Devi W/o Late Laxman Thakur 27. Sanjay Kumar Thakur 28. Prabhat Kumar Thakur Sons of Late Laxman Thakur 29. Rakesh Kumar Thkaur, Residents of Mohalla Old Bazaar, P.S. Town Munsifi, District- Muzaffarpur…….. Defendants- Respondents Defs. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 Renters also 30. Durga Sah 31. Mohan Pd. Gupta 32. Kishan Pd. Gupta 33. Rajeshwar pd. Gupta @ Raju Sons of Late Suraj Sah 34. Uma Pd. Gupta 35. Prem Kumar Prasad Gupta All of Mohalla- Old Bazaar, Town Muzaffarpur, P.S. Town, District- Muzaffarpur………… Defendants- Respondents 36. Most. Sumitra Devi W/o Late Lalu Sah - Shyam Mehta S/o Late lalu Sah 37. Manoj Kumar Mehta minor sons of Late Lalu Sah under the guardianship of Most. Sumitra Devi, mother. 38. Indu Devi d/o Late Lalu Sah and W/o Shri Triloki Nath Sharma Mohalla Old Bazaar, District- Muzaffarpur Respondents 26 to 42 renters 39. Smt. Kamni Devi D/o Late Lalu Sah and W/o Dig Vijay Mehta of Mohalla Old Bazaar, District- Muzaffarpur 40. Kishori Thakur S/o Bansdhar Thakur 41. Bharat Viskarma 42 Titu Viskarma Sons of Late Ramchandra Prasad Viskarma 43. Shyam Mehta S/o Late Lalu Sah Residents of Mohalla- Old Bazaar, P.S. Town, District- Muzaffarpur …….. Defendants 2nd Party- Respondents 4th Set. ----------- 2 05.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners’ judgment debtor against the order dated 05.01.2011 passed by Sub-Judge 1st, Muzaffarpur in Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2000 allowing the application filed by the interveners-purchasers under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution case. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order the learned court below did not hear the petitioners and passed the impugned order. The learned counsel further submitted that an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed but the learned court below has not decided the same still today. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has assigned good reasons for allowing the application filed under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the purchasers. The learned court below found that during the pendency of the execution case the subject mater of the decree has been sold by the decree holders in favour of the interveners- respondents and therefore, the application has been allowed. So far the objection of the petitioners that the petitioners were not heard by the learned court below is concerned, from perusal of paragraph-5 of the impugned order, it appears that on the date of hearing of the application of the interveners, the petitioners were not present and therefore there was no question of hearing the petitioners. On one hand the petitioners themselves are guilty of negligent and laches and on the other hand the petitioners are blaming the Court that they were not heard. It is well settled principal of law that supervisory jurisdiction should not be exercised in favour of a person who are guilty themselves for laches and negligent. 4 So far objection of the learned counsel that the learned court below instead of deciding the objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners allowed the application filed by the interveners is concerned, in my opinion, the petitioners should approach the court below first for deciding the objection if any filed by them. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in supervisory the jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Md. Ibrarul ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)