IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10409 of 2011 Sudhir Yadav Versus Lakhan Singh & Ors ----------- 02. 05.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, IIIrd in Execution Case No.15 of 2000 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without registering the application as Misc. Case, the learned Court below held that the application is not maintainable although the plaintiff-respondent’s suit has been decreed ex-parte and the public at large of the locality including the petitioner are using the dispute suit land as road since long. From perusal of the impugned Order, it appears that the earlier similar type of application were filed on 18.05.2002, 01.09.2003, 26.05.2006, 15.09.2006, 17.10.2006 and 19.05.2007 which was rejected by the Court below. Further the 2 learned Court below also found that the plaintiff suit for permanent injunction restraining the State of Bihar for making construction of road on the suit property on the ground that the plaintiff is the real owner of the property has been decreed. The learned Court below also found that Rule 99 of 21 is not applicable because the petitioner cannot be said to be dispossessed who was exercising any right title or interest in the suit property and, therefore, there is no question of deciding any question between petitioner and the decree holder. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)