HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. 227 No. 5343/2011 PBTITIONBR DEFENDANT Versias RESPQNDENT PLAINTIFF Pt. Ravi Shaaker Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Through its Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shaiiker Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, (C.G.). Dr. Harshvardhaii Tiwari, S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Tiwari, aged about 63 yeai's, R/o Gyaii Parisar, Near Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :HonTfeIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent not noticed, ORDBR 2. 3. (Passedoa 12/09/2011^ By this petition uncler Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged tlie legaiity and propriety of the order dated 14/ 10/2009 passed by 10th Additional District Jiidge, Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous CivU Appeal No. 4/2009 aiid order dated 16/2/2009 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Reupur (C.G.) in Miscellaiieous Civil Appeal No. 7/2007. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the'petitioner is heard. Leaiiied counsel for tlie petitioner submits tliat matter is relating to one wall an.d both the orders are contrary. Learaed counsel for the petitioner placed reUaiice in the niatter of Bir Bajrasig Kiimar v. State of Bihar asid others reported ia AIR 1987 SC 1345 ia which Supreme Court has held tliat ia case of more ttiaii one petitions to identical petition is similar order is required, Leanied coiuisel for tlie petitioner furtlier placed reliaiice ia the matter of Vimal Kumar Sahu Vo Nathuiai Gupta aad aaother li ^ -^- passed in M<A. No. 1974/1999 bj Coordis&ate Besich ia which Court has held tliat fhere should not be tovo contradictory finduigs of the issue regardiag rash aad negligent driving of tlie offendmg vehicle by its driver arisiag out of the saaie accident, In tib.e present case, t^o different civil suits were penduig before the trial Court aiid two different Misc. Appeals relatiiig to different cause of action were filed and decided that too in the year 2009. In case ofany contradictory findiiig relatiiig to one set offacts/cause of action, petitioner was uiider obligation to avail appropriate remedy by fIUiig suitable application before both the Coiirts below orone Court or its superior Court for analogoiis hearing but iiistead of takiag such step, present petitioner has filed petitiou after lapse of rsiore thaa two years, Super^isory jurisdiction cannot be exercised on tlie whims aiid fancies of the petitioner. Consequently, petition is dismissed inlimine wifti cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to ftie State Exchequer/State within 15 days. Bofh fhe Courts before matter is pendiag shaU ensure the payment. of such cost. Intenra appUcations are also dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ?/-