^' StefiS^ Ssiich t; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR PETITIONER PLAINTIFF w.P.No ^^ /2005 ^/Santosh Devi Yadav, W/o. H.N.Yadav, aged about 36 years, R/o. Netaji, Chowk, New Shanti Nagar, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS, Vinod Kumar S/o. R.R.Sharma, aged about 35 years, Occupation-Furniture Comtractor, R/o. New Shanti Nagar, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). ^^\ 0^^ x'^^^"' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2-27 ^ / •^) XI-HC-78 *|i*IC^I ^flT^ ^cf -<.iiqic'5«,u>-al'<i''«o,Rlc61^^ ^_)A(,.P.MO. ^^^lajyc^ 3TI^$T<PTf^TT^ ^TT37Tt$T9?^rcp 3TT^?T traq? (Ljc|i^<sl<^) iF^200 ^^rT^R^rf^ren^^T 05.10.2005 Shri S.C. Verma, counsel Heard. The petitioner has filed order dated 20.3.2005 passep impugned order, learned trial J^ civil suit No.lO-A/2004 (Kaila^ along with the present civil suit The facts are that the pe( and rent against the responderjt 39-A/2004. This civil suit was p^ for eviction was filed under (C.G.) Accommodation Control suit was also filed by the aforesaid written statement, ti| premisesw^s agreed to be s^ Kailash Sharma under an took this piea that upto 27.1.; thereafter, he is residing in the| 'Kaiiash Sharma. Another civi! Kaiiash Sharma against the pia| Sharma -v- Moruram Yadav &\ specific performance of contr^< executed for saie of premises t4 It appears that the defen| of present civil suit and also for| <P(<iIc5<[iv1 ^!*|C5T ^"f^S <<<Rr3^-CK ^3;rf^T3?T^^T |for the petitioner. \ , t^iis writ petition being aggrieved with the in civil suit No. 39-A/2004. By the l^idge directed for consolidated hearing of \h Sh&rma -v.- Moruram Yadav & other) tearing No. 39-A/2004. titioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction, namely Vinod Kumar vide civil suit No. ^nding before the tria! Court. This civii suit 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Act, 1961. The written statement in the Vinod Kumar. it appears that in the ie defendant took a plea that the suit )ld by the plaintiff to his brother namely to saie dated 27.1.2005. He also >, he was the tenant of the plaintiff and |suit premises as a ticencee of his brother |suit bearing No. 10-A/2004 was filed by (ntiff ofthis case and her husband {Kailash \othei) and the said suit has been filed for ^ct dated 27.1.2005, said to have been the piaintiff of the aforesaid suit. iant in this suit filed an application for stay ;onsolidation of the present civil suit along Sections deferldant agr^ement 2005 XI-HC-78 *1A<10l9»»t|tP ^SET'-^II^I^^THwis, (6lrtl1<-iy< _,_ W^^o.4:a4TS/ZC^5^200 3Tl^^T<PTf^Tt^ ?CTOT^^7^*1W '^. • . M^v Sn^^Tq^ (yii^ei<6) S^TT^^rf^TCT^^T -2-' with civii suit No. 10-A/2004. parties, disposed of the applic^t bearing No. 39-A/2004 and 10-4/ hearing of both the civil suits w|i proceedings of present civil suit| It is againstthis order, the piaintjff writ petition. Learned counsel for thet hearing of both the suits, the ij There is no prohibition In iaw to !t is not going to jeopardize the irtl Considering the facts anc| any infirmity in the order passec) agairist the impugnsd order ha; iimine. chI^1^41T1 HRc^" ^'^&?<Fji^$s^ ^Sll^TSTi^^T 'he iearned trial judge, after hearing the :ion and consolidated both the civil suits /2004. It was directed that a consolidated take place. However prayer for stay of under Section 10 of C.P.C. was rejected. of civii suit No. 39-A/2004 has fiied this petitioner submits that in consolidated iterest of piaintiff would be jeopardised., ^onsolidate the civil suits of above nature. |tentofthepetitioner. circumstances of the case, ! do not fiind by the trial Court. The writ petition filed no merif and the same is dismissed in Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ilaa