Wm 3mm: (W) 200 abo 25 years. WW,WW,W NHL) §1§3:13 Man her bus, son of Govind Ram, aged Om akash, son of éovind Ram; aged about Anil Kumar, son of Govind Ram, aged about WWW 3941m amiah' man afaam WWiwm ‘ $ Wm Petifioner/ Ash Mehani, son of Jai Ram Das Mehoni, Defendam No.1 I Responden‘rs/ Piainfiffs AH re *he residenf of Sindhi Colony, Defendants WWW 3941mm esiden‘rs of Sindhi Coiony, Tahsi! and . Raigarh (C6). 9. Jai Kumar, minor *hrough fa‘l‘her G‘ovind hm, aged abou'r 15 year's. All D 1 10. Sm . Tilli Bai, widow of tare Cheln Ram, abou'r 48 years, residenf of Teli ag Raipur', Dim. Raipur (CG). Bhagwan‘ri alais Aasha Devi‘ aged 11. ‘S . elibandha, Raipur, Dish-id Raipur- (CG). 12. In ra Bai, widow of Lodhi Rum. 13. Jai al, son of Lodha Ram. 14. Sh ichand, son of Lodha Ram. 15. As ok, son of Lodha Mm. 16. Raj umar, son of Lodha Ram. AH (defendanfs) are fhe residenf of near Bih ri Thea’rer', Biiaspur, Dis'i'ricf Bilaspur 17. mal, son of Tula Ram, resident of Sin hi Colony, Raigarh (C5). 18. Sh kor- Lai, son of Tularam, resident of ne r Bihari Theater, Bilaspur, Dish-id Bi 19. Pr mi 8ai, daughfer of Amar Dos. r i h m 5 u l (Wrif Pefi'rion under Ar‘ri : Bunc 3- 1- 2008 Shri Hari Shankar Pafei, c Shri Safish Gupfa; Dy. 6 w. Advocafe for fhe Stare/respondent No.23. Heard. The pefi‘fioner, who is def, preferred ‘rhis wrif pe'rifion unde Ie 227 of 1'hz Consfifufion of India) 5i I h : Ho hie Shri Justin La Bhndoo nsel for 'rhe pefi'rioner. ywhereby fhe applica'rion filed by dam No.1 before fhe Court below, has Article 227 of +he Cons‘ri‘rufion of India e pefifioner herein under Secfion 10 of mmm ammm mmm MW nrn’a‘f if fee?m %a' a'f‘cmm 20. Neela Bai, daughter of Amar Das. 21. Janaki Bni; daugh'rer of Amer Dos. All‘ are fhe residem’ of Sindhi Colony, Ra orh, District Raighar (CG). L; l 22. Ud am Dos, son of Parasoomal, resident of Si hi Colony, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C )- 23. St e of Chhattisgarh, through i the Col ector, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Code for passing fhe order fhaf ‘rhe Sfa‘l'e is necessary parry whereas The plainfiff has arrayed The Sfa‘re as a formal party has also been rejecfed. I have heard learned counsel for ‘rhe parties on admission and perused the impugned order. If has been menfioned in 1'he order 1'ha1 fhe earlier wif filed by fhe plainfiff/respondenf No.1 herein regarding fhe same land againsf 'l'he S‘l'aie whereas The present sui has been filed against the petitioner herein, therefore, the parties not same. Moreover, it has also been mentioned that in both the sui s the cause of action is also not same. Therefore, the application for ying the proceedings of the civil suit filed under Section 10 of the Co e was not maintainable. Similarly, while rejecting the application under er 1 Rule 10 of the Code, learned trial Court has mentioned that the pla ntiff has arrayed the State Government ief has not been sought against the State. Both the reasons given b the trial Court are based on the sound reasoning and in accordance with In view of the above, I doynot find any jurisdictional error in the _ impugned order, as such, +he wri? pefifion is liable 1'0 dismissed and if Vis hereby dismissed. Consequently. application. [I.A.No.1) for grant of stay stands disposed of. . — Sd/— L.C. Bhad00 Judge as aformal party because the e provisions of Section 1O of the Code. r a a l h