IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1343 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 960 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 6518 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1343 of 2011. ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sheopujan Singh of Village and P.O. Hasanpur Pipra, Dist. Arwal (Bihar), presently R/o Chitrakut Nagar, Road No. 3, Patna - 800012 .... .... Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. Nathuni Chaudhary, S/o Late Tribeni Chaudhary, 2. Mithilesh Choudhary, S/o of Nathuni Chaudhary, 3. Sikandar Choudhary, S/o of Nathuni Chaudhary, 4. Jaichand Choudhary, S/o of Nathuni Chaudhary, 5. Jaiprakash Choudhary, S/o of Nathuni Chaudhary, 6. Jaiyendra Choudhary, S/o of Nathuni Chaudhary, Minor under the guardianship of his father next friend and well wisher, 7. Mostt. Parano Kunar, widow of Late Ramchandra Chaudhary, 8. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Late Ramchandra Chaudhary, 9. Rajeev Raushan Chaudhary, Minor son of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, 10. Wicky Chaudhary, Minor son of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Minors under the guardianship of their father next friend and well wisher Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, 11. Mostt. Sudama Devi @ Tileshwari Devi, widow of Late Radhika Chaudhary, 12. Rintu Chaudhary, S/o late Radhika Chaudhary, All plaintiffs of new P.S. Case No. 125/98 / 62/98 Sub Judge III, Jahanabad, 13. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Late Ram Chandrika Chaudhary, 14. Mundrika Chaudhary, S/o Late Sarwan Chaudhary, 15. Vinay Chaudhary, Son of Mundrika Chaudhary, 16. Bala Chaudhary, Son of Mundrika Chaudhary, 17. Nandu Chaudhary, Son of Mundrika Chaudhary, 18. Raushan Chaudhary, S/o Binay Chaudhary, Patna High Court LPA No.1343 of 2011 (3) dt.19-10-2011 2 / 3 2 Minor under the guardianship of his father well wisher and next friend Binay Chaudhary 19. Ram Ishwar Charudhary, S/o Late Sarwan Chaudhary (All Defendants of new P.S. Case No. 125/1998 / 62/1998 Sub Judge III,Jahanabad.) All persons from Sn. 1 to 19 have been impleaded as Respondents / Defendants of Set I in this Petition. 20. Smt. Malti Devi, W/o Girijanandan Singh, 21. Lalan Kumar, S/o Late Dasain Singh, 22. Yashomati Devi, W/o Ramjanam Chaudhary, 23. Prahalad Singh, S/o Late Ramchandra Singh, 24. Sugapati Devi, W/o Kuldeep Ram, 25. Bishwanath Singh, S/o Sheodas Singh, All of Village and P.O. Hasanpur, P.S. and Distt. Arwal (Bihar) 26. Ram Pravesh Singh, S/o Late Rajdeo Singh, R/o Village Khokhari, P.S. and Dist. Arwal .... .... Defendants of Set II / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Dr. S.P. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : ----- ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 19-10-2011 The above Interlocutory Application is filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 52 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 10th May 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 960 of 2011. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as being one Patna High Court LPA No.1343 of 2011 (3) dt.19-10-2011 3 / 3 3 without merit. The matter at dispute is the Execution Case No. 6 of 2003 pending before the Sub Judge II, Jahanabad. According to the appellant, the aforesaid execution proceeding is filed in respect of a partition decree dated 20th July 2001 passed in Partition Suit No. 125 of 1998 / 62 of 1998 by the court of Sub Judge III, Jahanabad. It is the grievance of the appellant that the aforesaid decree has been obtained by the parties thereto collusively to defeat the interest of the appellant. Be that as it may, an Appeal from the order of the learned single Judge made in a writ petition arising out of Civil Suit is not maintainable. If aggrieved, the appellant has adequate remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure. In our view, neither the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is maintainable. The Appeal and the Interlocutory Application are accordingly dismissed. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)