IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1915 of 2006 1. BIBI AMNA, WIDOW OF LATE KABRIUDDIN. 2. REYAZUDDIN. 3. MD. SHOAIB AHMAD. 4. MD. MOKHTAR AHMAD. SONS OF LATE KABRIUDDIN. 5. FAHMITA KHATOON. 6. KHURSHIDA KHATOON. 7. SANJEEDA KHATOON. 8. RABEYA KHATOON. DAUGHTERS OF LATE KABRIUDDIN. ALL RESIDENTS OF BALIA BAZAR, P.O. LAKHMINIA, P.S. BALIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ….SUBSTITUTED HEIRS OF DEFENDANT NO.2 JUDGMENT DEBTOR LATE KABIRUDDIN-OBJECTORS…...PETITIONERS. Versus 1. ZAHIRUNNISA, WIFE OF LATE MD. ZAHIRUDDIN. 2. FATMA KHATOON. 3. MAMUNA KHATOON. BOTH DAUGHTERS OF LATE MD. ZAHIRUDDIN. ALL RESIDENTS OF CHHOTI BALIA BAZAR, P.O. LAKHMINIA, P.S. BALIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …..HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF…DECREE HOLDER LATE MD. ZAHIRUDDIN…………………………..OPPOSITE IST PARTY. 4. PANCHU CHAUDHARY @ PARAS CHOUDHARY. 5. GANESH CHOUDHARY. 6. RAM BARAT CHAUDHARY @ RAM BABU CHAUDHARY. 7. BHOLA CHAUDHARY. ALL SONS OF LATE KRIPA RAM CHAUDHARY. 8. JHOTI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE KRIPA RAM CHAUDHARY. ALL RESIDENTS OF BALIA BAZAR, P.O. LAKHMINIA, P.S. BALIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ….SUBSTITUTED HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF ORIGINAL DEFENDANT NO.1-JUDGMENT DEBTOR LATE KRIPA RAM CHAUDHARY…….OPPOSITE 2ND PARTY. 9. MD. MUZIBUR RAHMAN. 10. MD. ABDUL SATTAR. 11. MD. MUSTAK AHMAD. 2 SONS OF LATE MANISUNISA. ALL RESIDENTS OF BALIA BAZAR, P.O. LAKHMINIA, P.S. BALIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANT NO.3 JUDGMENT DEBTOR LATE MANISUNISA. 12. MD. ALI. 13. MD. SAJJAD. 14. MD. KHURSID. SONS OF LATE ZULEKHA KHATOON. ALL RESIDENT OF BALIA BAZAR, P.O. LAKHMINIA, P.S. BALIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.4 JUDGMENT DEBTOR ZULEKHA KHATOON. 15. SHAHZADI KHATOON. 16. ANWARI KHATOON. 17. AKHTARI KHATOON. ALL DAUGHTERS OF LATE KHUDAZA KHATOON. ALL RESIDENT OF BALIA BAZAR, P.O. LAKHMINIA, P.S. BALIA BAZAR, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ….HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.5 JUDGMENT DEBTOR KHUDAZA KHATOON. …………………………………………OPPOSITE 3RD PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Pramod Kumar Sinha and Arvind Kr. Sharma No.1, Advocates. --------- 4. 4.1.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 16.9.2006 passed by Munsif-I, Begusarai, in Title Execution Case No.5 of 1990, whereby a petition for staying the further proceeding of Execution Case till the disposal of a Partition Suit had been rejected by the court concerned. 3 It is submitted that the court concerned ought to have stayed the further proceedings till the outcome of the Title Suit No.119 of 1986 wherein the properties of the joint family which also includes the property under the Execution Proceedings, are in issue. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the aforesaid suit there has been interim order for maintaining status quo. It has also been submitted that during the pendency of the appeal filed against the concerned judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.12 of 1970/59 of 1978, of 1979, which has been put to execution in the Execution Case No.5 of 1990, the appellant and judgment debtor, namely, Kripa Ram Chaudhary had already vacated the suit property and these petitioners, who are co-sharers of the plaintiff, have entered into that and are in possession of that property. The court below on consideration of rival submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that the decree was challenged in appeal and the appeal has already been disposed of. Since a case for execution of that property has already been filed, the concerned decree has to be executed. It is admitted that the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of other petitioners, was also one of the party-defendants in the concerned suit, wherein decree has been passed in favour 4 of the plaintiff for eviction of defendant no.1, the aforesaid Kripa Ram Chaudhary. In that view of the matter, the petitioners could not make out a case for stay of the Execution Proceedings and, thus, the court below had rejected the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any jurisdictional error committed by the court concerned. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the Title Suit No.119/86 shall be disposed of by the court concerned without being prejudiced by any observation given in this order. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)