IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.582 of 2010 Ram Kripal Thakur, son of Late Sonelal Thakur, resident of Village-Sari, P.S. Waris Nagar, Dist- Samastipur --------- -- Defandant/Appellant Versus 1. Jawahar Thakur , Son of Late Sonelal Thakur, resident of Village-Sari, P.S. Waris Nagar, District-Samastipur --------------- Plaintiff/Respondent 1st Set 2. Ram Bilas Thakur 3. Ram Swarth Thakur Both sons of Late Sonelal Thakur, resident of Village- Sari, P.S. Waris Nagar, District-Samastipur 4. Most. Ganga Devi , Wife of Late Sonelal Thakur, resident of Village- Sari, P.S. Waris Nagar, District-Samastipur 5. Nirmala Devi, wife of Sri Ram Niwas Sharma,resident of Vill- Gorgama, P.S. Mahnar, Dist-Vaishali 6. Smt. Shila Devi, wife of Sri Ramnath Sharma, resident of Vill- Chakhaidar, P.S. Tajpur, Dist-Samastipur -------- Defendant 1st Set/Respondent 2nd Set 7. Sri Nageshwar Thakur, Son of Late Siri Thakur 8. Binod Thakur 9. Pramod Thakur, both sons of Nageshwar Thakur, All residents of Village- Sari, P.S. Waris Nagar, District- Samastipur----- Defendant 2nd Set/Respondent 3rd Set ----------- 07 13-04-2011 Heard Sri Dhanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant /appellant, Sri Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos.7 and 9 and Sri Ajay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 to 6 and 8. The present appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (r ) of the Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the learned Sub Judge 3rd , Samastipur in Partition Suit No.223/03, whereby the learned court below has rejected the petition filed by the appellant. The appellant in the partition suit had filed a petition for permitting him to sell 2 Kathas of land of his share 2 from the suit land for the purpose of marriage of his two daughters. In the case, Respondent 1st Set had filed rejoinder in the partition suit. After hearing the parties, the learned court below was of the opinion that during the pendency of the partition suit, it was not appropriate to permit the defendant/appellant to sell the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the present petition, submits that the appellant was in urgent need of money for settling the marriage of his two daughters. It has also been submitted that before the court below an incorrect written statement to the petition of appellant was filed by the plainfiff, in which an incorrect and false statement was made regarding earning of the appellant. It was further submitted that the court below, while rejecting the petition of the appellant, had directed for taking steps for paper publication against defendant nos. 8 and 9. It was submitted that since defendant nos. 7 and 9 have already appeared in this case who are respondent nos.7 and 8, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the suit and conclude the same within specified time. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the impugned order. After going through the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the court below has committed no error. Since the suit for partition is itself pending, it was not appropriate for allowing either of the parties for disposing of any part of the suit property. Accordingly, there is no point for interference with the impugned order. However, keeping in view the fact that the partition suit was filed in the year 2003 and all the parties have already appeared before the court below, it is 3 desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the partition suit, so that the case may come to its logical end without any unnecessary delay. With above observation and direction, the appeal stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)