IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.156 of 2007 NAV RATAN KUMAR SINGH ….. Plaintiff-appellant. Versus BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS….Respondents. ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: None. ORDER 12. 2.7.2010 This Misc.appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Sitamarhi, in Partition Suit No.156 of 2006 whereby the injunction application dated 27.10.2006 has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff –appellant filed the aforesaid suit for partition after declaring the Judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit No.139 of 1997 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff. The allegation is that defendant no.1, father of the plaintiff had earlier filed Partition Suit No.139 of 1997 against the defendants which was compromised and on the basis of compromise a decree was passed. According to the plaintiff the said compromise decree is mischievous and collusive. 3. A separate application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.was filed alleging that the respondents are selling the suit property. The defendants filed reply alleging that there had already been partition between the parties through the court and, moreover, the parties are separate in mess and business since long. It is further alleged that some of the properties have already been sold and the purchasers are in possession. It further appears that in reply it is stated that the defendants- respondents are not intending to sell 2 property situated at village Batahi. After hearing the parties the learned court below rejected the injunction application. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unless the respondents are restrained from selling the suit property the appellant shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury and because the appellant has admittedly share in the property, therefore, he has got prima facie case. 5. It may be mentioned here that it is admitted case that the father of the plaintiff had filed Partition Suit No.139 of 1997 against the defendants and that suit was decreed on compromise. That compromise decree has been challenged in this suit. Unless that compromise decree is set aside the plaintiff cannot be granted any relief. Moreover, the injunction was sought for by filing application as far back as on 27.2.2006. Since last about four years there is no injunction order. The plaintiff was also allotted share in compromise decree and is in possession of his share. Now he want that the defendants be restrained from enjoying their. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case the learned court below has rightly rejected the application for injunction. 6. In the result, I find no merit in this Misc. Appeal and, accordingly, this Misc. Appeal is dismissed. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )