—-^ r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wnt Petition No. 2-34-4- / 2005 Petitioner /Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Govind Ram Agrawal Age - 22_ R/o Fafadih, Teh. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently Resi. At Main Road Samata Colony Raipur VERSUS Respondent / Shri Ram Kumar ^ .....••\'^s/0 shri Devi shai Agrawal, ^•"'^^•^ Proprietor - Kumar Enterprises, "" ^.^-Station Road, Raipur, R/o H. No. 522, Behind Sheo Bag Pandri, Raipur Teh. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^A..^^^ ' ^2.7 0^» ^ ^^'\U AssaUing Or^er Dated ^^/2005 Passe^ By The Court of X Acditional District Judcie,Raipur, In. Civil Suit No. 6-A/2004. ^ PETITION UNDERART 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^^ ^' ^ ^-"^' ^••' ..ff^ >^^"; ft gp- XI-HC-78 ?.: *ll*lrtl ^TT^ ^sr'-^l^irt^i, ul-al<<-i<i<o, Row^ .^.^ASAh.i ^2005' 3TT^$Tc{5TfeTfc^ ^r^TOT^^T^^N? •^c^ 3TT^9T q^P(4c|^<5|<£{) ^F?rt^^rf^T 3TT^^T 17^-2005 ShrS Raja Sharma, oou| Heard on admissJon. The petitioner has pr^ <r>j^fo41Ti ^i+icyt'^'fe^ ^f%R^ ^3Tf^T3T1^^t ITISQ} for the potitioner. ferred this writ petition under Artide 227 of fhe Constitutjon of indi'a ques|joning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27-4-2005|passedby the 10th Additionai District Judge, Raipur whereby learned Addltional District Judge rejected the appljcation fil©dby the plaintiff/p©tition©r|herejnfor staying the proceeding of the Civii Suit N0.6-A/2004. | At the outset, iearn^d counsel for the petitioner very frankty admitted that the case of the| of the C.P.C. for staying the present sutt is ailowed to coit wiil arise. Moreover, the pr^ Ipetitionerwas not covered under Section 10 Iproceeding ofthe said suit. However, ifthe Itinue. then the multipljcjfy of the proceeding t>ceedmg wiil be a futiie exercise, therefore, iearned trial Court ought to hfi|v@ stayed the Civjl Suit till the disposal ofthe appeal pending before the ^\igh Court against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Di^trict Judge m another suit. Moreover, ifthe appeat js decided by the Hig^ Court, then that wjll be heipful in decislon of the present suit, therefore, le^rned Addjtjonal District Judge oughtto have steyedtheproceedmgbfthe^uit ^^ / Brief facts necessary f^r the disposal of this petition are ftat'money decree was passed fether of the petjtioner hereit ^<c-<' bearing No.8 and 9, Khasr^ No.542/9, area ad measuring 7500 sq.ft. which is the subject matter in| both the suits before the A.DJ., Raipur was auctioned and that was pu^chased by son of the respondent herein ir against the |i and in execution of that decree the ptot XI-HC-78 vd'uq T^ i<4 irt^, ^-a1^< id, fqrti^yx micn^^^'"^^J^'-^-^-h^'---'^^^ 3TT^$T Tra<l> (^ll*i<5l<ri) 3ff^^T^Tf^17<T) WTTOT^^T^HT^ ^THT^^^Tf^TOT^^T _ o <Pl<<f041Tl HPPTc^"^' I^<-<3 ^FJI^-CI^ ^3ti^T3TT^T namely Pavan Kumar. Be^g aggrieved by the aucHon, tiie petitioner herein preferred two civit sui^s one against Pavan Kumar in the year 1989 for deolaration and prohibitoil petitoner against the responcj arrears of rent and evictic] respondent is the tenant Jn tll was filed by the petitioner] dismissed by the triai Couj petjtioner herein moved an y jnjunction and another syit was filed by the ent who is the father of said Pavan Kumar for n In the year 1985 on the ground that le house of the petitioner. The later suit which herein against Pavan Kumar came to be 1: and it is informed ttiat the appeai (FA. No.57/05) is pending again^t the suit before this Court. Thereafter, the applicatipn under Section 10 of the C.P.C. before the triai Court forstay|ng the proceeding of the suit flled against the respondent eariier m time a<id that application came to be djsmissed by the 10 Addjtional District 4udge, Raipur holding that the matter is not covered under Section 10 of| the otiier suit filed againstPa| (f we look into above | different as the suit filed a^ injunction whereas, the pres^nt sult has been filed against respondent for arrears of rent and evictionl petitioner. Moreover, the pre^ Now, comirtg to the q| stayed ti{( the decision ofth^ of this Court may be helpful that cannot be a ground for ^he C.P.C.. The present suit was filed prior to /an Kumar whjch has atready been decided. facts.thenature of both the suits is entirely ainst Pavan Kumar was for declaration and on the ground that he is the tenant of the lent suit has been filed eariier in time and the parties are not same, thoreflore, in any case, the petitioner's case is not covered under Section 10 ofthe C.P.C. jestion that proceeding of iis suit should be appeal by this Courtand ultimatejy, dedsjon in deciding the present suit. Sn my opinion, ^taying the proceeding of the suit, particularii XI-HC-22 s?5Er ^rrai^pT, ^Tn^^Ko, fsf<r(i^y ....W^.V.Uj.^ ,„ f^g; WHdl SHHIW 3Ti^T2RT fN^W^T Sb^l<^ ^T^Ct 3n^T??cnw^r •s- and injunction whereas, the relationship of landlord and tene|nt. ^W\^-i NIMdT^fe^ <^^1< ^-3rf^?3=H^T - ^)LU- when the subjeci matter of bo^h thesuits^sentireiy different. The other suitwhich has already been c|ecided that has been tlted for declaration present suit js based purely on the !n the qjrpumstances, ^' Ban/e failea to ffwfe- that tne trial ( material irregularity: as such impugned order. The writ pet|ti accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. im of the opjnton that the petittoner has ^ourt has exercised the jurisdictjon with o not find any reason to interfere with the on is liabie to be dismissed and ii is o.1897/2005 a!so sfeands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (tf^g^) ^ ^