'<-^A mGH COIIRT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BELASPUR WMT PETITION (Q No. 2648 of20U7 RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Engle S/o Shri Narayan Rao Engls Aged about50 years R/'o 88/2, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) VERSL7S 1. K.Raju S/o K.Guniwaiya Aged about - 52 years, R/o Shastri Nagar Camp No. 1 Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil &, District - Dus (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Branch Manager Punjab National BanJs, Behind Vijay Talkies, Whole Saie Fruits Market Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) WRrT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Single Bench : Hpn'ble Justice Shri Sattsh K.J^nihptri. Present: Shri Santosh Yadu, Advocate for the petitioaer. ORDER (Passed on 2nd day ofMay, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner seeks qu^iifaing of sale notice published in news paper by respondent no. 2, till disposal ofthe civil suit pending before the Court below. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell are that ttie petitionCT filed a suit for declaration and mandatory mjunction against the respondeats in respect of suit house wherein, according to the petitioner, he has been residing for four years, alongwith an application under order 39 Rule 1 aad 2 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure (hereinafiBr referred to ittl as "the Code"). The 12°' Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Durg, dismissed the said application on 17.1 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal no. 1026/2006 (Ashok Kumar Engle Vs, K.Raju and another) in this court. The said miscellaneous appeal was dismissed on 07.12.2006 as withdrawn with a liberty to file a freshapplication under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code, aflter deposituig the entire amount outstanding with the Punjab Nationa] Bank, Bhilai Nagar, Durg. 4. The petitioner, without depositing the entire amount outstanding with the respondent no. 2 as per order dated 7,12.2006; preferred one more application under section 151 ofthe Code ofCivil Proeedure, seeking for the same relief as sought for in tfae eariier application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 offhe Code. The Court below held that the similar relief sought fbr in the earlier application, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 ofthe Code, was dismissed and the second apptication under section 151 ofthe Code is not maintainable. The petitioner was granted liberty by this Court in Miseellaneous Appeal No. 1026/2006, subject to depositing of entire amount wiA the respondent no. 2 to file a fresh application for the same relief. The petitioner filed the application under some other provision i.e. section 151 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure for the same rdief. He is not entitSed to any reliefas the relief sought for in application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code was already rejected on ^ 17.10.2006 and the miscellaneous appeal filed against the said order being M.A. No. 1026/2006 was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court with liberty, subject to some conditions. 5. Once the application seeking for the same relief has been rejecteid that cannot be re-agitoted under some olher provision. The recourse to fiiing tfae application under section 151 ofthe Code is misuse of judicial process and the same was rightly rejected. 6. There is no infimiity, illegality or irregularily in the order as to call for indulgence ofthis Court in its extraordinaryjurisdictioa. 7. Thus, for the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut