^ IN THE HISH OOURI OF GHHaTTISSARH AT B II.ASPURCC.S.) •*•**•»*•»•.«»»•.* «»« TIRST APPEAL N0,.'^^—6? 2007 APPEfeIiANTS PLAWriFS-S ^sce 6>- .0^- ^ ^s^s^ 10 ^taSPENBANTS : . l®; Bhagirathii.Tiwarl.,son of late • ^^ ..'• . . _. : !. '1:1- —: ' Daulatrain Tiwari,aged about BO yearsf 2. Saur.Lshantear Tiwari.son o£ late Baulatram Ti-warA.aged a&oat ,.. 4®year's® - ,: ' ' • 3.! Mani Shankar tjwari.sora of lafe •'.^:^v<. •f' SaaIatSEara'^TJLwar.L.aged atooufc 40 yBars^ , , - A1I Eesidenfes of VillageoSakEi Tehsil-TaWaafepur.Disferietn % B.i.laspurCc.o,) V E RS H S •• • : • 1!8! ^ShEi Baitetesh Bhagwan Kandir, Sa<aar Baaar.B ilaspur .throagh Saryarateaff Mahant Shr-.L Shri NiwasaehaFya Msharaj.aged about 60.yeaFs,eifey Bilasptir.Tehsil and Dj.stFj.at-S.U.aspar,(e«©« 5 Sfcate of Chhattisggrhi.tbroBgh . 'Phei BAstriet c§:aa.3^^B2»Bilaspur, :lDI.strilefe-BilaspuF,'(G.S,) FIRST,APEEM< UNBER SBG'FIQN ^&'SSK THE OQPBOB' ervn pB©CEDtjREf,' 3^ •*iww^, yal-H'Ko, fs«ni'MI^< ..£:.£\:...'3.7.jf.<?..7... W( 200 W!SS (. aii^iWTftsfw sqi sn^r *tii* \s '^flRR'Hftasiiia DIVISION BENCH: HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA MI^HRA Se HON. SHRI DILIP RAOSAH0B DESHMUKH. JJ First App4 APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS 1. Bhatn-athi Tiwari, son of late Dau^ati-am Tiwari, aged about 50 veart 2. Gautishankai' Tiwari, son of late Dau(atram Tiwari, aged about 48 yeart RESPOITOENTS DEFENDANTS W^! ^r-fra'H^ll^, ^l^^i^iM —FS/i97—3/2008—40,000. AUij Taklf AUrl Shri| Sadi Niw4 60 -i Statt Distt Bila^ Disttict qtTii!CT<4lTi 'En?T?Tf Tf fi^ <^-^:i< ^affimaii^r alNo. 37 /2007 3. Man|i Shaiikar Tiwari, son of late . Dar4 yearf atramTiwari, aged about 40 ;sidents of VUlase-Sakii Tehsil- atpLU', District-BUaspui'. (CG) ssidents of VUlage- Sakri Tehsfl- Takljiatpiir, District- Bilaspur (CO) Versus Benkatesh Bhagwan Mandir, ur Bazar, Bilaspur, through Santarakar Mahant Shri Shri sachaiya Maharaj, aged about ears, City BUaspur,Tehsil and Dist^ict-BUaspur (CG) of Chhattisgarh, fhrough tlie CoUector, BUaspur, District- pur (CG) m rfsy ~73! '^W\f[^, •SVlWIQ, fqwiyy HWdJ VhWh WI, 200 3II^?T '<T^T (ipf^q^q) 311^1 qB^THT ^V 3TT^T sh*lich *.' 'TOIIW ^lfe 3fI^?I FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECT(ON 96 OF THB CODE OF CIVIL PROdSBDURB 20.8.2008 Shri V.P. Gupta and Sh|ri P.K. Tiilsyan, counsel Ibr the appeUants. Shri Surdl Otwani, couns^l Shri P.R. Patankar, P.L. fc(r Distallct The tnstant fu'st appeal and decree dated 8th Februaiy, A/06 whereby the leamed the suit offhe appeUants/plaint Learned counsel for the judgment aad decree on fhe appeUants were not a party;. a| there were other defendants; belongmg to the otlier defendartts It was also argued fhat the iib.st appeUants/platntiffs on fhe title flTrough adverse possessia|a between fhe parties in the pre^t the leamed District Judge was on fhe ground of resjudicata. chi<rf^i<ftrr +if+i<rff ^f fsTst <nii<-^.i< ^sffin aii^i for the respondent No. 1. the respondent No. 2. p.5 du'ected agatnst fhe judgment 2007 passed in Civfl Smt No.19- Judge, Bilaspur has disniissed itiifs. at:)peUants has unpugned the above ^•ound that in fhe former srut the >art Irom. father of the aupeUants, apart from the siiit land, lands were subject-aiatter of the suit. ub.stant suit has been filed bv fhe fhat they have periected their and thus, nature ofthe dispute ;nt suit was entirely different and ^iot justified m dismissuig fhe suit ahd robnd t- 3TI^( W 1<-) "^8H 3TT^?T sh+ii<ft <"• £. 7=T '<<i<<i<>it|, »tf1y'i<o, fsi<niyi< HWWI fl»*ll<sb •• ••—•••••••••-••••••••••••••-••••--••••^ 200 311^1'T^T (1clij'!<<^T) wnw^f^f 3d^i On fhe other harl respondents/defendants have) and decree offhe Court belowl We have heard leaniedl and gone fhrough fhe materia) The leanied Court belovd of fhe appeUants/plaintifis defendant No. 1/respondent A/88 in the Court of IV CivU defendants uicludinR the fathl DaulatraBi Tiwari with respec|t land of the present civil suit acre and 744, area 0.04 acr^ leanied Civil Judge on No. 1/defendant No. 1 prefe( 38A/02 against dismissal oft|ie respondent No. 1/defendant and decree dated 16.2.20051 were decreed. The Court below furthet has been filed by tiie platn^iffi sam.e sult land claimtng thelr CM<i[fi<HTi ^iwi^f f^ fe<<Q <F;>(^I< i; affifir an^r ~[d, leanied . counsel for fhe supported the irapugned judgment counsel for fhe respective parties avaUable on record. disraissed the civil suit No. 19A/06 Ibv recordtne a findinR fhat fhe yio.l had filed a civil suit No.114- pudge, Class-I, Bilaspur against the ;r offhe present appeUants nainely (t to the suit land including the sult ]3earing Khasra Nos. 493, area 1.15 That suit was dism.issed by the 31.1.1998. The respondent Ired civfl appeals No.36A/02 and suit and the appeals preferred by t^o. 1 were allowed vide judgment and fhe si-uts of respondent No.l observed tliat the instant civU sult ffs/appeUants wifh respect to fhe title through their father against /.. "i6»B. ! :1 1 XI-WE-sfJS sii^i w K.-n* ^TiTsn^iwiw ^ 's^ -^wwi, &v\w\<c, ^wwy. HWWl ^^iq,- • •• ^ 200 3n^T'T?q? (1pf35i^Ei) TOiiWHfet an^i ^ judgi|ient the respondent No. l/defenda|nt fonner suit, stnce fhe passed ui civU appeal p4 1/defendant No. 1 has prefen'ed against the sam.< successors- of Daulatrani are passed in fhe earlier suit an| Section 11 read with Orderl Procedure and it is hit by disniissed the suit under Orcic bv law. Having heard leamed through the pleadtngs of the suit as weU as fhe judgment m Civil Appeals No.36A,/02 opuiion fhat fhe sybject-maljter fafher offhe platnttHs/appen4nts and subject-matter of plaintifis/appeUants and substantiaUy thesanie. We are of the considerefl by fhe trial Coiirt for dism|issu finduig is borne out from. tht chl^[CT<fll tfftl<?Tf ^ {&V\ <P>1-^.1< ^aiRn sn^i No. 1, who was plaintifi' m the and decree dated 16.2.2005 ^efeiTed by the respondent No. att^ined flnality as no appeal was the plaintiffs/appeUants betn^ |boiind by fhe judgment and decree tl fhe instant sult is barred under 7 Rule ll(d) of the Code of Civil the doctrine of res juduxcta and ;r 7 Rule ll(d) of C.P.C. as barred c()unsel for the parties, havtng gone IplatnttGs/appeUants tn the instant fcad decree dated 16.2.2005 Dassed 38A/02, we are of fhe considered of the fonner suit between fhe and fhe respondent No. 1 herein present suit between the respondent No. 1 heretn, are A ftie tllie 1 opinion that the reasons assigned issing the suit with the aforesaid fc material avaUable on record. The ;" ..y:Sff8%. 4-' ';B vl\ ^ ^^f^, %1 I-HG»7y ..^•" 75T "41'41d'LI, ®ill<H'l<o,fq<>1iyy,< H11CTI g,t,|q,- • • -^ 200 f sn^Ttra^? (^j^q^q) sn^iv ft-ii'* ^TT 3n^>fspTiN? ,y^~. '%,.., ^r^t^ w<iiw(riTO w^i s- appellants/plainttffs have file title-.and- .gesQptual uijunctic|n wifh respect to the suit land 1.15 acre and 744, area 0.04 acre JS.-<»<fc' 'bearuig'Kti&^ffNos. 493, aret ^-Si ^-i. ^s'is.-'Ks^- ^ against Shi^Benlcatesh Bha^wan Mandir, Sadar Bazar. From. 1 of ti&e1'iudgiiient and '•"'Sa'? £s'ir!!>-K"»i.:,'!-'a- CivU Appeal Nos. 36A/02 Additional Distnct Judge, Bils by the respondent No. 1 her and perpetual injunction was Baulatram., fafher of the yy ^resent appeUants/plauitifEs, was respondent ,No.i 2 whereas ti^ KIiasraNos. 493, area 1.15 a< appeals preferred by Shri allowed and fhe suit was decr^ed, as mentioned above. In view of above fact, w^ fhe learned District Judge, hj Order7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC v( barred iinder Section 11 oftht Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ch['4[<n*l"ll iTR^ff^ t?T3t ^fol^K ^sifilTaiitg fhe instant suit for declaration of decree dated 16.2.2005 passed in ^u-id 38A/02 by the leamed III spur it is evident that fhe suit filed 2m. for possession of the suit laad lecreed. In Civit Appeal No.38A/02 Civil Appeal No.36A/02, he was respondent No. 8 and fhe eatrUer suit was also wifh respect to |:re and 744, area 1.61 acre and ffae penkatesh Bhagwan Mandi were are of fhe considered opinion that ^.s rightlv dism.issed the suit iinder dfh an observation fhat the suit is CPC on fhe ground of res judicata. There is no substance tn the i^istant appeal, the sam.e deserves to be dism.issed and is accordui^Ly, dism.issed with cost fliroughout. J Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge