IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9992 of 2011 Uday Shankar Prasad @ Uday Prasad Versus Vinod Prasad & Ors ----------- 02. 30.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 14.03.2011 passed by Sub Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Title Suit No.134 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sell his share from the suit property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had taken loan by mortgaging some of the suit property in the year 2005 and to repay the said loan amount of Rs.1,50,000, it is necessary for him to sell the property. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Court below has assigned good reason for exercising discretionary/inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. It is well settled principles of law that even if two views can be taken, the High Court will not substitute its own view in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction when the learned Court below has taken another view unless it is shown that gross injustice has been done and immediate setting aside of the order is 2 called for. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)