IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14365 of 2011 Binda Devi @ Bina Devi Versus Mahanth Lakshaman Das ---------------------------------- 03. 20.09.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to correct the provision of law. He is permitted to correct. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of filing of stay application before the appellate Court in title appeal No.81 of 2011, the appellate Court is not passing any order on the said application and the executing Court is proceeding ahead in the execution case. This impugned order dated 02.08.2011 has been passed by the executing Court in execution case No.14 of 1964 on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 26. Admittedly, in title appeal before the appellate Court stay application has been filed by the petitioner. I, therefore find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The learned executing Court has, therefore, rightly refused to stay further proceeding in execution case. The petitioner is required to press his stay application before the appellate Court. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, it is made clear that if the stay application is pressed before the lower appellate Court, the Court shall pass necessary order according to law within one week from the pressing of the same. With the above observation, this writ application is accordingly disposed of. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)