IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.76 of 2011 Ramesh Prasad, Son of Sri Babulal Agrawal, resident of Langer Toli/ Gali Lane, Police Station-Kadam Kuan, District-Patna ----------------- Plaintiff/appellant Versus 1.Babulal Agrawal , Son of Late Ghiso Lal Agrawal 2.Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Sri Babulal Agrawal Residents of Nawal Ashram, Flat No.403, 4th Floor, Dariyapur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-Patna 3.Suresh Prasad Agrawal, Son of Sri Babulal Agrawal 4.Mahabir Kumar, Son of Sri Babulal Agrawal 5.Bajrang Agrawal, Son of Babulal Agrawal, resident of Nawal Ashram Flat No.304, 3rd Floor, Dariyapur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-Patna 6.Satish Agrawal, Son of Sri Babulal Agrawal, resident no.1,3,4 and 6 are residents of Langer Toli/ Gali Lane, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District- Patna ------------------------ Defendants/Respondents. ----------- 03 30-06-2011 Heard Sri Raj Shekhar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and Sri Mukesh Kumar Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the defendants/respondents. The present appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r ) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 29.10.2010 , whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by learned Sub Judge-I, Patna in Title Partition Suit No.507 of 2009. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that despite the fact there was prima facie case in favour of the appellant and balance of convenience was also in his favour, the learned court below has rejected the petition for stay. It was submitted that there was no partition in between the parties and without any partition the defendants/respondents have started transferring the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to last 2 paragraph of the impugned order in support of his submission and argued that the court below has committed an error of record in mentioning that there was nothing on record in respect of alienation or transferring the suit property, whereas at page-2 of the impugned order, the court below has noticed the sale deed showing transfer of the land to one Smt. Rita Kumari Sinha, notice issued in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for enquiry etc. Sri Mukesh Kumar Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents at the very outset submits that the learned court below has rightly rejected the petition filed for stay. He submits that the appellant was required to bring on record of the present Memo of appeal the copy of the plaint, which was filed in the court below. He further submits that in the original plaint at paragraph nos.( VIII) and (IX), it has been admitted by the plaintiff/appellant that there was already separation in mess and business and the plaintiff was residing separately. He submits that the suit property was self-acquired property of the defendants/respondents, which has been noticed by the learned court below. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the defendants had taken the stand that the suit properties were self-acquired property and defendant no.1, who is none else but the father of the plaintiff/appellant, had claimed that the suit property contained in Schedule-I was purchased by him on his own earning in the name of his wife and after the death of his wife, he is in exclusive possession of the suit property. Similar stand was taken by respondent nos.2 to 5. From the materials on record, it is evident that the 3 plaintiff/appellant completely failed to establish prima facie case for grant of injunction. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J. )