IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10976 of 2011 Nageshwar Prasad Mandal & Anr Versus Most.Gayatri Devi & Ors ----------- 02. 14.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been field against the order dated 21.05.2011 passed in Title Execution Case No.6 of 2004 by Subordinate Judge Ist, Saharsa whereby the application filed by the petitioner-Judgment debtor has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are in possession of Holding No.443 and they are residing in the house standing on Holding No.443. They apprehend that in execution of suit property, i.e. plot No.381 of Holding No.338, the executing Court may dispossess them from their residential house which is of Holding No.443. In such circumstances, the petitioner prayed that executing Court should measure and demarket the suit property and then only proceed in the execution case. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the executing Court found that this question was raised before the second Appellate 2 Court also. The second appellate Court decided the matter and it was observed that in fact the suit property is plot No.381 holding No.338. So far the claim of the parties, i.e., Judgment debtor is concerned, the holding No.443 is not the subject matter of suit. It appears that the parties did not address with regard to plaintiff / decree holder and plaintiff did not claim any right, title with respect to holding No.443. In such view of the matter, the apprehension that the Executing Court may dispossess the petitioners from holding No.443 is unfounded. In such view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ application as the learned Court below has rightly rejected the objection. Accordingly, this wit application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)