ing'R/agf ^f':y ^-/-sy- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. °0 Of2005. 1 PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS /</"-.<? :- ^ 1. Basaat Kumar, aged 42 years, son of Lachhiram Yadav, resident ofBhogah- a Para, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil and Distt. Janjgir, Pankaj Kumar, aged 45 years, son of Jagmohandas Doshi, Caste Gujrati, ward no. 2, Akaltara, Tahsil and District Janjgir, VE R SU S ^-k Chmtamani, aged 37 years, son of Khemraj, Caste Soni, Village Bhogaha Para, Shivrmarayan, Tahsil and Distt. Janjgir (M.P.) (now Chhattisgarh), DEFENDENT 2. Civil Judge Class I, Janjgir, District Janjgir (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA DETAILS OF PETITION :- XI-HC-22 T^'qFHcTO, tSTfl'M'IG, isldKiy *11HMI Sh*<l<* W'f- 30) s' sn^rw f^iwsn^r sbiiebylsa 311^1 gt-dlW(rf?tT SRPTfcTifN'lITtlcff ff fecit tf^P: ^srf^ITSll^T 11.7.2005 Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr.Counsel with Mr. V. Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioeni|s. ^ Mr. V.K. Pandey, coijinsel for respondent No.l. The petitioner has Ipreferrcd this writ petition under Article 227 of the Cons]tit^ition of India questioning the legality and propriety of ord'er dated 14.1.2005 passed by leanred Civil Judge Clas|s-I, Janjgir whereby learned Civil Judgc has rejected the a^plication of the petitioners herein filed under Order 2 K]ules 3 & 4 of thc C.P.C. for consolidation of Civil Sifit No.83A/96 filed by respondent No.t herein and Civil Sui|t No.SA/98 filed by the petitioners hercin, Brief facts leading 1jo filing of this petitian are that in the year 1992 respondejnt No. 1 herein filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.!p3A/96 for grant of pernianent injunction against the p^titioners herein in respcct of thc property inentioaed in chedule-A of the plaint that the defendants / petitioncr^ herein statiug that defendants /petitioners herein bc jrestrained by way of perinanent injunction froni interf)^ring with the possession of respondeut No. 1 and the^- be restrained from dispossessing respondent No. 1 from. the| suit property. In that suit written statement has already b^cn filed by thc petitioners herein. Respondent No. 1 hcreiu 4as alrcady closed his evidence and the inatter is fixed fo^ evidence of petitioners herein. XI-HC-22 3^T '*IWWi, B'Tfl'M'IS, fs|<~1iyy sn^TEiiT {^ri^sn^r Sh^l4i wfffia' es^»i--^ ^in^^^'5" II*ICTI ai*<ich Wtf' •Sol 5' wi^i g+diwnfStT 2^' Thereafter, in the year 1) another civil suit in re ^pect of the same property for declaring the sale deed d^ted 27.2.1985 as void and non- existence, as the same is the property be delivered suit also written statemc|u): has been filcd by respondeut No. 1 herein and after fra4iing of issues the matter is fixed for evidene of the petition^rs herein i.e. the plaintiff. During the pendeacy of this suit provisions of Section petitioners' suit was filed Suit filed by respondent ( cannot be stayed. Now coming to the suits is saiae property bu »hNt<~l41-<ITII|cffffiWt<R]Wlt ^sil^irsn^T 998 the petitioners herein filed forged and further possession of to the petitioners herein. In that the petitiouers herein jaoved an application for consolida^ion of both these suits but the same has been rejected by| the court below. It is true that the b|oth thcse suits pertains to same property and between saii^e parties. In the strict sense the O are not applicable as the later in time i, e.6 years after the fo.l, therefore, the previous suit ^uestion of consolidation of both the suits, even though tjhe subject matter of both these the issues involvcd in thcsc suits are not directly and sub^tantially in issue, for the reason that previous suit was in^tituted for permanent injunction, restraining the petitionjers hcrcin from dispossessing respondent No.l herein aAd not to cause interference in his possession, whereas, in ]fhc suit filed by the petitioners herein after six years of jthe suit filed by respondent No. 1 -£-ft-S-^C^r\ XI-HC-22 3^ •^l^ld-4, ^Tflti'Kc, Rxaiyy ^•^ 301 *11*<WI gi^HI^^ ^ ^ sn^rqiT R-fi+sn^r sbKi+'yRtt ...<SJ m _g. ^' >.- ( 0> the subject inatter is the was executed in favour ofi Mangli Bai, who were th| question. The injuaction suit ground of possession, \^h^reas, in the later suit, which has been filed by thc petitiou^rs, the main question which is to be decided is that whettter sale deed dated 27.2.1985 is forged, void and non-ef]fective. Therefore, I am of the opiniou that issues invc|lved in both the suits are not directly and substaa'tiall^ cannot be consolidated inl suits relates to saine prop| Learned Sr. Cousnel the injunction suit also been frained, which could be decidcd iu an injunc petitioners are at liberty »bi'l<?ci4lH^itidTffte^A^K ^isrf^tTsn^T sale deed dated 27.2.1985 which respondent No.l by Ramtin Bai & originalrfowners of the land in is to be decided merely on the saine, as such the proceedings ;rely on the ground that both the :rties and between same parties. for the petitioners argued that in |the issue regarding the title has not be franied and titlc could not |tion suit. For that purposc, the Ito move trial court in accordancc with law, In the result, the pe1|ition of the petitioners is liable to be disinissed and it is| accordingly, disinissed at the adnalssion stage itself. Consequeutly, M.(W.[ stand disposed of. )P.No.264/05 & I.A No.5349/05 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ('flii^ir)