IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16463 of 2011 Laxman Prasad @ Lachman Narayan Prasad & Anr Versus Mritunjay Kumar @ Bachcha Babu ----------- 05. 15.11.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. S.K.Mazumdar on behalf of the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Subordinate Judge VI, Siwan in Partition Title Suit No.288 of 1995 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC praying for a direction to the respondents to deposit the income from the Cinema Hall in the Court has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this partition suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming 38% share in the suit property including the Cinema Hall. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendants are earning Rs.36,000 per month from the Cinema Hall which is a joint family property and they are utilizing the same for their own benefit only and, therefore, the application was filed by them to direct the defendants to deposit the same amount in the Court but the Court below has rejected the said application. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case of the defendants before the Court below was 2 that the said amount which is being earned by the defendants is used in maintaining the Cinema Hall by the defendants because the Cinema Hall is given in Patta to another person who is running the Cinema Hall. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner. In view of the above facts, it appears that one possible view has been taken by the Court below in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 151 C.P.C. Therefore, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no other possible view can be taken by the High Court. So far the submission of the learned counsel that the property is joint family property is concerned, it is a matter to be decided by the Court below at the time of hearing of the suit. The same cannot be decided at this stage. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)