IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11343 of 2011 Urmila Devi Versus Awadhesh Kumar & Ors ----------- 02. 15.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is directed against the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by Sri Prem Chand Pandey, Sub Judge V, Patna City in Misc. Case No.2 of 2011 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure and refused to stay the Execution Case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land of the petitioner was included in the award of the Arbitrators. The said award of the Arbitrators has been made a rule of the Court and on the basis of the said award, the Execution Case No.5 of 1999 has been filed by the respondent which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge V, Patna City. In the said execution case, present petitioner appeared and filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said Misc. case has been admitted and notice has been issued to the decree hoder. In the said Misc. case, the present application under Order 21 Rule 29 has been filed and prayer was made to stay further proceeding in execution case. The learned counsel further submitted that if the further proceeding in 2 execution case/delivery of possession of the suit premises is not stayed during the pendency of the Misc. case, the petitioner shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury and she will be ousted from the residential premises. Admittedly, there is no suit between the decree holders and the judgment debtor pending in any Court. So far the petitioner is concerned, according to her, her property has been included in the arbitration award. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the husband of the petitioner was contesting the arbitration award and he is a party to the same. The petitioner is not party to the earlier proceeding. In view of the above fact, I find that it is not a case of jurisdictional error or that the learned Court below passed the impugned order in flagrant disregard of any law. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)