HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS§ARH AT BILASFUR Wrif Fefi?ian {227) Na.2097 of 2§10 Pa?ifioner Purunlu! Eup‘l’a, aged abou‘r 47 years, Befendan'!’ SI’o Lufe Vishwam‘rh Gama, Prep. Pankaj Tiles, Vimy Lodge Ks, Nichg, Manendmgarh, Dis‘rtKariya Versus Respowem 5hri Ram Raikwar, aged abou? 7O years, 5/0 Lafe Sakuipmsad Raikwar, R/o Fuwara Chowk, Manendragarh, Dis‘HKcriya {Wri‘r Pe'ri‘rion under Ar-Ticie 227' of The Consfifu'n‘ion of India) (5B: Hon‘ble Mr.T.P: ShamaJ)“ ‘ Present— MrPamg Kcfecha, counsel for The pe‘rifioner. MnNeelkanTh Melviya, counsel for fhe respondent. ORDER (Passed on 1w July, 2010) 1. Hear-d on admission. 2. The peti‘rioner has fiied 'rhis pe‘ri'rion for quashmen'r of fhe order dafed 29.3‘2010 (Annexure W5) passed by The Civil Judge Class-I, Manendmgarh, in Civii Suit No.5 AfZOOS, whereby iear—ned Civji Judge s Cioss-I has declined 1'0 frame addifional issues in Terms of Order 14 Ruie 5 of The Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 (in shorT ‘The Code’). LO . Learned counsei appearing for The peTiTioner submi‘i's That The suiT filed by The plainTiff/respondenT has been properly replied by filing wriTTen sTeTemen‘r, in which The peTiTioner/defendan'r has alleged ThaT ren‘l' agreed beTween The parTies were’noT Rs.1400/-, as The respondenT ’claimed. No sTondard renT has been fixed. No valid noTice has been served upon The peTiTioner and in The absence of such valid noTice and J arrears of ran/T due on The da're of filing of The suit The suiT is noT mainTainable. On The aforesaid ground, The peTiTioner has chailenged The *2_ main‘rainabiii‘ry af 1'he sui1' under Order 7 Rule 11 of #he Code, bu? ‘rhe same has been dismissed by fhe friai Court Therenf'rar, fhe pefri‘rMner- has preferrd revisian being Civii Revision No.61 of 2009, bu? ‘rhe samg was also dismissed by This CourT vide order doTed 28.7.2009 wiTh anf observm'ion 'fhaf fhe friai Cour? is required f0 consider The pleudinge of The parTies and afTer framing The issues in This regard. Learned counsei ' furiher submi‘rs Thai for jus? ‘rrial of The sui‘r, issue rein-ring 1’0 vacation of The premises and mainTainabiliTy of The suiT, recovery of renT in I excess of smndard ren‘r wouid be necessary. Learned counsei confended i'hu'r recovery of rem beyond 'fhree years is no? permissible under The iaw, Therefore, ‘rhe piain‘riff/responden'r was under obliga‘rion fa ciaim arrears within fhree years. On fhe ofher hand, learned counsel appearing for 1-he respondeni' submi'rs The? issues aiready framed by The iriai Cour? wiii caver ali ‘rhe issues which The pe‘rii'ioner proposed as addirionai issues. I hdve perused fhe order impugned, copy of fhe piain‘i‘, copy of ‘rhe U! wri‘rfen statemen? and rhe appiica'rion for framing addifionai issues. In ihe presen? case, standard rem has no‘r been fixed by fhe au‘rhori‘ry. The pefi‘rioner has no? filed any pefi'rion before 'l'he Rem Com-rolling Aufhori‘iy for fixing sfandurd renf. As regards fine dispufe of ren‘r, specific issue rela‘ring To enTiTlemenT and recovery of renT has been framed as Issue No.1 which‘will cover The enTire dispui’e relaTing To enTiTiemenT and recovery of renT. Issues No. 1 and 2 also framed in such a manner which show ThaT The plainTiff/respondenT is wheTher enTiTled for vacanT possession of The premises which wili cover The issue relaTing To vaca'l'ion of The suiT accommodaTion as alieged by The peTiTioner. Copy of The plainT reveals TnaT noTice hos been served upon The respondent The quesTion relaTing To amounT of renT which can be legally recovered fond noTioe relaTing To such parT is also covered by issue No.1 q—g/ already framed. As prayed by 'rhe pe-rifioner far framing of’addvmnai issues, issues have already been framed by fhe fr—ial Caur‘r, ‘rherefare, m any fur-fher addEfiona! issue woui& b3 necessary far jus‘r dacismn of 'rhe q case. Hawever, if is open far 'rha pe‘ritioner i0 fiie coun'i'er cinim/coun‘rer case and raise such graund if so i'hink necessary. i 9. In view of fhe foregaing, 1 éo no? find any meri‘i in 1'i'iis ee'ri‘rien. Ti‘ie i peiiiion being devoid of meri‘r is iiabie in be dismissed and i1 is hereby dismissed in admission siege i‘iseif. No arder as fo cosisi a Sdl— T.P.Sharma Judge