IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.726 of 2009 1. MAHESH KUMAR SON OF SRI MUDDI RAI @ RAM MURTI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARIARPUR, P.O. & P.S. PANDARAK, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. MOST. BIBI RAHAT ARA W/JO LATE SYED BELAL AHSAN. 3. SAMIRA AHSAN D/O LATE SYED BELAL AHSAN. BOTH RESIDENT OF AHSAN MANZIL SALEMPUR BARH, WARD NO.21, NEAR BARH THANA, P.S. BARH, DISTT. PATNA. … … DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAHIYA KHATOON WIFE OF LATE AMIN AHMAD. 2. SHAMIM AHMAD 3. SAMIM AHMAD 4. FIROZ AHMAD 2 TO 4 ARE SONS OF LATE AMIN AHMAD. 5. NILOFAR JAHAN D/O LATE AMIN AHMAD, ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SALEMPUR WARD NO.12, UNDER BARH MUNICIPALITY, P.S. BARH, DISTT. PATNA. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SYED FAKHAR AHSAN, S/O SYED REYAZ AHSAN, ADVOCATE R/I MOH : SALEMPUR, P.O. & P.S. BARH, DISTRICT PATNA. … … PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS IST SET. 6. SYED IBARAR AHSAN SON OF LATE SYED BELAL AHSAN 7. SAMIRA AHSAN D/O LATE SYED BELAL AHSAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA AHSAN MANZIL SALEMPUR BARH, P.S. BARH, DISTRICT PATNA. … … DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. ----------- 8. 13.4.2011. Heard Mr. Dhrub Narayan Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants – appellants and Mr. Khatim Raza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs- respondent Ist Set. The present appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule I (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 21.10.2009 passed in Title Suit No.147 of 2008. By the said order, the learned Sub Judge-I, Barh had disposed of the petition filed on behalf of plaintiffs-respondent Ist Set, which was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Sub Judge-I, Barh had perused number of documents 2 produced on behalf of plaintiffs in respect of his title and possession over the suit premises. On behalf of the defendants-appellants only sale deed of the year 2008 was brought on record. In the suit, one of the prayers was also to declare the said sale deed void ab initio. The learned Sub Judge-I, Barh, while hearing the petition, had recorded in its order that prima facie balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and thereafter directed for maintaining status quo over the suit property. After perusing the impugned order, the court is of the opinion that the learned Sub Judge-I, Barh had committed no error and the impugned order requires no interference. The appeal stands dismissed. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)