^F^ f H!GH COURT OF JUDtCATURE CHHATTISGARH:B!LASPUR W.P.(C» No. 6860 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents Deshraj Chaudhary Versus Deepak Kumar Saraf Postfor order on ^.^arch, 2007. Sd/- ish K. Agaihotri Judge ^. '^< B ^J s:- (:, H1GH COURTOF CHHAmSGARHAT BILASPUR WP.rQ No.68eOof2C»6 Petitioner Defendant Deshraj Chaudhary, S/o Late Baburam Chaudhary, aged about 72 yeare, Resident of Link Road, Bilaspur, at preserrt residing at viilage Abhepur, Distrirt Una (Himachal Pradesh) Versus Respondent Deepak Kumar Saraf, S/o Moti Lat PlainUff Saraf, aged about 46 years, resident of Unk Road, Bitaspur (C.G.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice SatishK. Agnihotri, J Shri S. I. Ali, Advocate for Uie peBtioner. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for ttie respondent. ORDER (Passed on this day of March, 200^ Thefollowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihofri, J. 1. By this petifion fited under Article 227 of the Consfitution of India, the petittoner chattenges the legalifr/ and vaKdity of the order dated 9.11.2006 (Annexure P/8) passed by Ifte First CMI Judge, Glass-1, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 4-A^O (Oeepak Kumar Saraf Vs. Deshraj Choudhao?), wherein the appiication filed under Section 10 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'), for stayingths said proceedings of the civil suit, was rejected. 2. The respondent/plaintiff insfituted a civi! suit bearing C.S.NO. 4-A/90 on 15.4.1990 in the Court of Rrst Civil Judge-l, Bilaspur. for recovery of rent, damages and ejectment of fts petitioner/dsfendant from ths suit premises under ths provisions of the Chhath'ssarh Accommodation Contro! Act, 1961 (fer short the Act, 1961'}, on the ground interalia, that the respondent/plainSiff requires the house for bonafids need. 3. The father of the respondent instituied a tiUe suit in the Court of 4"' Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspur on 15.1.18^). the same was transferred to the '\^:1- : Y~ .-<^ --.-/.<. /^~^\ ^ Court of Rrst Civil Judge Ctass-I.Bilaspur, impteadi'ng the respondente and others as partydefendante, bearing Chfl! Suit No. 6-A/94. 4. The present petitioner fried an applteaSon in suit No. 4-A/90 under ssction 10 of the C.P.C. for staying the proceedings in view of the pendency of the Stle suit. The saic! application v.'as alte^ved on 12.10.1892 and the proceedings undsr the provisions of the Act, 1961 v»asstayed. Ths Suit No. 6-A/94, fijed by the petitioner was decreed by the judgment and order dated 15.7.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the First Civil Judge, Ciass-!, Bilaspur, declaring that the petitioner as the ownsr ofthe suit house and the Munteipa! Corporation was directeci to maks necessary amendmente in the relevant records. 5. The father of the pstitioner preferred a Civil Appea! No. 3-A/2005 against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2005 before the District Judge, Bitaspur. The appeal was allov.'ed vide judgment and order dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure P/S) and the suit ftled for titte by Uie petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has preferred a Second Appeal No. 232/2006 before this Court. 6. After ths order datsd 28.2.2006, passed by the District Jucfee Bitespur. whereunder, the titfs suit filed by the petitionsr was dismfesed, the petitioner filedan applfcation under Section 10 ofthe C.P.C. in Civil Suit No. 4-A/90 praying that the proceedings be stayed ti!l the disposal of the second appeal. 7. Learned Civil Judge, after having considered all the facts, partteularty the fact that by judgment and orderdated 28.2.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3-AffOOS, by the District Judge, the tftie suit, fited by the petitioner stood dismissed. The High Court in Second Appea! No. 232/20(re has not passed any interim order staying the opsration of the judgment and order dated 28.2.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3- A/2005. The petitioner, thereafter filed fhe present appiication under section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying the proceedings in Civil Suit "~r'^f:~~£ ^ r Thakur No. 4-A®0in view of the pendency of the Sscond Appeal in this High Court. 8. t have hard leamed counsel for the parties. 9. Admittsdly, (he tiUe suit fited by the petitioner has been dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and ordsr dated28.2.2(X)6 passed in CivB Appea! No. 3-A/2005, thus the suit for evicGon fiied by the respondent is to continue fili any other order staying the effect and operation ofthe order dated 2S.2.2006 is passed in Second Appeal. There is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error, noticed in the impugned order dated 9.11.20)6. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Bie Constitutton of India shoufd refrain itestf from interfsring with the order passed by the Court below.except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity orjurisdidional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. W.fis a resuit, in view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed. no order as to coste. Sd/- K. Agni Judge •s-'-