IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9245 of 2011 Bhola Sah & Ors ……… Petitioners Versus Rakato Sah & Ors ……… Respondents ----------- 16. 29.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ application has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the order dated 19.7.2008 passed by Sub Judge-4th, Motihari, East Champaran in Partition Suit No. 361 of 1986 whereby, the learned court below marked the sale deed dated 26.2.1952 and the judgment of Title Suit No. 279 of 1979 as exhibits in the case. It appears that in the preliminary decree there is a direction by the court that the properties which have been sold by the parties may be adjusted in their share. During the course of final decree proceeding the respondents filed the registered sale deed of the year 1952 and the judgment passed by the court in the aforesaid Title Suit No.279 of 1979 and prayed that both the documents may be marked as exhibits in that case because these documents were filed in the court prior to passing of preliminary decree but those documents have not been marked as exhibit. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that earlier these documents were filed. The certified 2 copies of the same have been marked as exhibits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he apprehends that the property covered in sale deed may not be partitioned. So far this submission is concerned, I find no force as the final decree is to be prepared according to the preliminary decree. The case of self acquisition has been disbelieved in the preliminary decree. Therefore, the apprehension appears to be without any basis. Since the documents have only been marked as exhibit, I do not find it to be a case where supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)