1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.56 of 2008 ----------- Smt. Manju Devi, wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, resident of Muhalla Chiraiya Tanr, Devi Asthan Gali, P.S. Jakkanpur, District Patna. Versus 1. Sri Santosh Kumar @ Keshav Ji son of Shri Radha Radhesh Pd. 2. Utkarsh @ Sonu, 3. Akash @ Monu, Both are minor sons of Sri Santosh Kumar @ Keshav Ji 4. Smt. Madhubala Singh, w/o Sri Santosh Kumar @ Keshav Ji 5. Radha Radhesh Pd. Son of late Krishna Bihari Prasad 6. Nithikant son of Sri Shyama Singh, All residents of Muhalla Chiraiya Tanr, Devi Asthan Gali, P.S. Jakkanpur, District Patna. …Defendants 1st Set-Opp. Party. 7. Smt. Tara Devi @ Savitri Devi, w/o Sri Nagina Pd. Yadav, Resident of village Kala Diyara, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna, resident of Chiraiya Tand Khas Mahal, Road No.3, P.S. Jakkandpur, District Patna. …Defendant 2nd set-Opp. Party. -------- For the Petitioner : M/s Tilak Sao and Rajesh Mohan,Advocates. For Opp. Parties : None. ------- 03/ 29.10.2009 I..A. No. 137 of 2008 has been filed for condoning delay in filing of the civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that some genuine reasons have been shown, which prevented the petitioner from filing this civil revision earlier. Accordingly, I.A. No. 137 of 2008 is allowed and delay in filing of the instant civil revision is condoned.. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 16.03.2007, by which learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna, rejected his application dated 2 06.11.2006 filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity ) for directing the defendants to furnish security to the tune of Rs.6,67,404.00 along with conditional attachment of the property given in Schedule-I of the said application filed in Title Suit No. 371 of 2006. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration of his title on the basis of registered sale deed dated 21.08.2006 executed in his favour by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and also for directing opposite party no.7 to execute sale deed in respect of Schedule-II property in favour of the petitioner and for recovery of possession of the suit property and, in alternative, for recovery of Rs. 6,67,404.00 as well as for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendants have appeared in the suit. 5. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 06.11.2006 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under the provision of Order XXXVIII Rule 5, read with section 151 of the Code for a direction to the defendants to furnish security and for conditional attachment of the property given in Schedule-I. The said application has been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna, vide his order dated 16.03.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court 3 below but it is quite apparent that the plaintiff’s claim is based upon sale-deed dated 21.08.2006 said to have been executed by defendants no.1 to 3 in his favour. However, the said sale-deed had been very seriously challenged by defendant no.5 claiming that defendants no. 1 to 3 were not the owners of the suit property nor they were entitled to execute any deed with respect thereto in favour of the plaintiff and hence no title was transferred. It was further claimed by defendant no.5 that much earlier in the year 1977 he had purchased plot no. 184 from the original owner Parmanand Prasad and also by Smt. Radhika Devi through registered deeds, which have never been challenged. 7. In the said circumstances, when the title of the vendors of the plaintiff was itself under challenge on the basis of much previous registered documents, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, which appears to be absolutely frivolous and misconceived. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )