HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4342 of2009 PETITIONERS : 1. Mohd. Shabbir S/o Shri Mohd. Mahood, aged about 50 years, Oceupation — Beta} Shop. 2. Mohd. Islam S/o Shri Mohd. Kaimuddim aged about 50 years, Occupaticm — Betel Shop. 3. Sarju Gupta S/o Shri Ramchandra Gupta: aged about 45 years, Occupation Sinai} Hotel. 4. Chattu S/o Jaggu Pal, aged about 43 years, oecupatiou a Sinai} Hotel. 5. Bhoiu Singh s/o Shn' Uday Singh, aged about 40 years, Occupation Genera} Store $hop. 6. Mohd Mustaq S/o MohcL Jamiluddm, aged about 40 yeare, ueeupatlon Stauon y Shop 7. Ganesh Pal S/o Shn Rajdev Pal aged about 40 years, Occupation ‘ Smali Hotel. 8. Mohd Amir S/o Mohd Sjjad, aged about 50 years, Oeeupatlon a1 lad Hotel 9. Mohd Nasun b/o Mohd. Hasim, aged about 50 years, Occupation Shoe Shop. 10.Mohd. Rabbani S/o Mohd. Jabbar, aged about 55 yeafs, Gecupatiou ~ Shoe Shop. All r/o village Kusmi, Tahsil Kusmi, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhavan, Rajpur (C.G.) The Collector, Surguja, District Surgaja (CG) The Sub Divisional OEwr (Revenue) Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. The Nagar Panehayat, Kusmi, Through its Chief Municipal Omcer, Nagar Panchayat, Kusmi, District Surguja (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB Hon’ble hhn batmsh K. Agmhotrl, J 4 RESPONDENTS p.‘ wt). Present: Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sac, Government Advocate for the State/respondents 1 to 3. Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 04 day of September, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the subject matter ofthis petition is pending cmsideration in a Civil Suit being No."l‘54-A/2006 before the Civil Judge, Class II, .. Ambikapug District Surguja. The petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that despite the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent authorities are taking steps to demolish the structure standing on the plaint schedule land. Notice was issued by this Court on 13m August, 2009 and interim reliefwas also gamed. Shii Tripathi, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, who is representing the respondent No. 4 in the civil suit also, submits that during the pendency of the dispute before the Civil Court, this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as the subject matter is one and the same which is pending consideration in the Civil Suit No. l54-A/2006. The contention of Shri Tripathi merits acceptance. I am of the View that when the competent civil court is seized of the dispute, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant relief in a pending matter. Even otherwise, if the High Court interferes with the dispute, which is pending before the Civil Court: that may prejudice the case ofthe other side and there may not be a fair and free adjudication by the Court below. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, without. expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case, this petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that an order of status quo was granted on 13m August, 2009, the same shall continue for a thither period of one week from today. In the meantime, the petitioner may approach the competent civil Court for appropriate orders. Certified copy, today. sw— Satish K.Agnrhom ‘ s Judge‘