ORDER : Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey on behalf of the appellants and the learned senior counsel, Mr. S. S. Dwivedi on behalf of the respondents on I.A. No.3713 of 2011. (2) This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellants under ORDER :41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. praying therein to stay further proceeding of Execution Case No.4 of 2010 pending in the Court of Sub Judge III, Buxar. (3) It appears that the plaintiff-respondent no.1, Sheo Shankar Sah filed title suit no.328 of 2007 for specific performance of contract dated 11.09.2006 and also prayed for declaring that the sale deed dated 29.10.2007 executed by defendant no.1 (respondent no.2) in favour of the appellants is forged and fabricated document and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1 delivered possession of the suit property and the plaintiff is coming in possession since the date of agreement. (4) The defendant no.1 filed contesting written statement. After trial, the learned Court below decreed the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract finding that the appellants are not bonafide purchaser and the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in their favour is forged and fabricated. The learned Court below directed that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled for specific performance of the contract. In view of the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff-respondent filed the execution case. (5) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that unless the further proceeding in execution case is stayed, the appellants shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury. (6) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has only prayed for execution of the sale deed through the Court and the defendant no.1(respondent no.2) has to execute the sale deed. In such circumstances, there is no question of irreparable loss to the appellants arises because the plaintiff has not prayed for delivery of possession as he is in possession of the property. (7) From perusal of the impugned JUDGMENT :, it appears that the learned Court below found that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants is forged and fabricated and the appellants are not bonafide purchaser. It further appears that in the execution case, the plaintiff-respondent has only prayed for execution of the sale deed and nothing more. (7) From perusal of the impugned JUDGMENT :, it appears that the learned Court below found that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants is forged and fabricated and the appellants are not bonafide purchaser. It further appears that in the execution case, the plaintiff-respondent has only prayed for execution of the sale deed and nothing more. At paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that the learned Court below fond that the possession of the suit property has been given on the date of execution of the contract. (8) From perusal of the JUDGMENT :, it appears that the learned Court below found that after execution of the agreement to sell, the possession was delivered to the plaintiff and that the appellants had prior knowledge of the agreement and they are not bonafide purchaser and that the sale deed executed by respondent no.2(defendant no.1) in faovur of the appellants(defendants, second set) is forged, fabricated and without consideration. So far this finding is concerned, the defendant no.1 is not challenging. Prima facie, therefore, the finding of possession is in favour of the plaintiff-respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 also submitted that only he is praying for execution of the sale deed through the process of Court. It is not the practice of Patna High Court to stay execution of the sale deed. Further, mere execution of sale deed by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.1, no irreparable loss will cause to the appellant as the plaintiff-respondent no.1 is not praying for delivery of possession in view of the finding recorded by the trial court. (9) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the execution of sale deed in the execution case cannot be stayed. As the plaintiff-respondent is not praying for delivery of possession, therefore, there is no question of stay of further proceeding in execution case arises. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since he is in possession, he will not pray for delivery of possession. (10) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the stay application i.e. I.A. No.3713 of 2011 is hereby rejected.