:;S:i^';iai£SE",l.»-S'!i^Sg,i:tSi^»5,!^i:.^E'^;?^;!l»Sai;l!5i-SSg?:is2^! c?) Cl^jo/. IN THE HI5H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPi ;TTT] \^: ^ft-'.';'?' '>".••• (Oh fit- ^ 1. Rajesh Kurr.ar Achar^a, S/o Late Shri Purushottc Acharya, aged about 43 years 2. Ku. Shrimanti Achary'a, &/o Late Sh"i Purushottam Acharya, aged about 45 years. /3. Ku. Rewti Acharya, &/o Late Shri Pur-ushottom Acharya, aged about 44 years. Al! three residents of Bhairamdsv Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt-Jagdafpur /l. S ¥-• .^^'. j^y\"B7 •^y^\^ L y^\^ ;T 'IRECTIOI ^dp ^ dfr^^1" ^ S/o Lo.te Shri Purushottam Acharya, a9ed about 55 years, R/o Civil Line, f^al Bag, jQgdaipur, bistt- Jagdalpur (c.s.5 toard of Reyenue, BiiQSpur (C.6.) CONSTITUTION OF WWA FOR ISSUANCE OF V/RIT IN THE ••ttSS'k^t^ » ^t'-a^ ^ '<g'hrfi ^u, i ^? ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant KumarMishra Writ Petition (Q No. 1812/2007 RESPONDENTS : RisMkesh Acharya and another Apj3earance: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Miss. Ritu Mishra, couasel for respondent No.l. WRIT PETITIQNUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FNDIA ORALORDER (07.12.2010) Admittedly the dispute between the parties with respect to the subject land is pending in this court in S.A. No. 1215/1999 preferred by respondentNo.l Rishikesh Acharya. (2) It appeai-s during the pendency of Civii Suit No. 72-A/94 the respondent moved an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records,' in the court of Tahsildar. However, in the meanwhile the 6 Civil Judge Class-II, Bastar dismissed the suit preferred by respondent No.l by judgment and decree dated 17/05/1996 (Annexure P-1). First appeal preferred by respondent No.l was also dismissed by the 3 Additional District Judge, Bastar vide judgnient and decree dated 30 August, 1999 (Annexure P-2). le Second Appeal No.1215/1999 has been prefen-ed agamst the saaw® judgment and decree passed by the civil court vide Aanexure P-1 and P-2. s- (3) In the opinion of this coui-t when the matter is pending and judgment and decree has been passed by the civil court, a parallel proceeding before the revenue court should not have initiated. Even otherwise, this court has already passed an interim order on 8/02/2001 in S.A. No. 1215/1999 observing that ifthe name oftlie respondent No.l is mutated during pendency of second appeal, the same shall be subject to the decision ofthe second appeal. (4) In view ofthe above, the impugned order passed by the Board ofRevenue desen'es to be and is set aside. However, both the parties shall be at libeity to move appropriate application in the pending second appeal for seeking any interim order, if occasion so arises or the cause ofaction survives. (5) With this observation, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge