35mm mm! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT‘ISGARH AT£ILA$PUR WRIT PennomzznNo. REE) /2o11 PETFI‘IONER /Nafhmal Agrawal S/o LaTe Shri %LAINTIFF) Sa’rYanarayan Agrawai, Aged abouT 63 ) year's, R/o Vidya Nagar‘, Bilaspur-(C.G. VERSUS :I Kamal ‘Kishor'e Agrawal :1) RESPONDENTS / S/o ‘Shr'i NaThmaI AgrawaL Aged abouT 4O years,'R/o Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur-(C.G.) Sm‘r. Sarla Devi Agrawal, W/o Shri Na’rhmal Agrawal, Aged about 57 years, R/o Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur-(C.G.) Manoj Kumar Agrcwal S/o ‘Shr'i 'Nafhmd AgrawaL Aged abou‘r ”37 year's, R/o Vidya Nagar‘; Biiaspur-(cai ' Vinay xKurnar' Agrawal 5/0 Shri V Na?hmdl Agrawai, Aged abou’r 3O year's, R/o Vidya Nagar', Bilaspur-(C.G.) Sm’r. Sandhya Rani Agr‘awal WW/o'Shr'i Ndresh Kumar AgrawaL Agedvabouf 32 years, R/o Dhillon Complex, Jawahar Nagar', Raipur—(C‘G) 5m. Dimple W/o Shri ARvind Mimi, Aged abouT 26 year's, R/o KaTghom C/o M/s Ashok Rice Mi”, Kafghom, Disff. Korba-(C.6.) ' S’ra’re of Chhah‘isgarh, Through : The Collector, RaipUr-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I HgGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR WRH‘ PETVHCN f22?¥ NO. 1239 OF 2011 PETITHONER/ : Nathmai Agrawai PLNN'HFF Versug RESFONDENT$ : Kama Kishore Agrawai and others. WRW PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 22? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ‘NDIA CNN. REW810N NO. 2 UF 2M1 REWSION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CNIL PROCFFH IRF Q.O. {3incs‘le Bench: Hon'me Shri MK. Aq‘arwai. J.) Present : Shri Virendra Sharma, coun$ei far the petitioner in W.P.(22?) N0. 1239/201 1. Shri Kehiti} Sharma, counsei for the applicant in CR. No.2/201 1. Shri Vinod Tekam, counsel for the State. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 18‘“ (my of March, 2311} Both the parties in the above matters are aggrieved by order dated 09—1 1—2010 passed by Civit Judge, Class-ii, Kasdot, District Raipur in Civit Suit Noit-AJ20tO whereby and whereunder on detendants’ application tiled under Order 7 Rule 10 & H read with $ection 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), the Trial Court has held: the suit would be maintainable only with respect to property situated within its territorial jurisdiction and destined to entertain the defendants’ application filed under Section 10 read with section 151 of CPC. 2r l have heard learned oouneei for the parties. «5“ PETiTiONERi : Kamat Kishore Agrawa! DEFENEimT NGJ Versus RESPONDENTS . Nathmal Agrawal and {Plainti§f & Defendants athars. N01 to 7} 2 3. The suit before thg Caurt befow was med with respect to immovabfe pmperty pamy situated within territorEal jurisdiction 6f Court bekow and partly within tefritorial jurisdiction of Bilaspur Court, As per Section 17 of CPC, where a suit is to obtain reiief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovabie property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courte, the suit may be instituted in any Court Within the iocai iimits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. 4. in view of the above, the trial Court’s order on defendants‘ application under Order 7’Ruie 1D & 11 read with Section 151 of CPC is without jurisdiction in as much as the triai Court had jurisdiction‘to entertain the suit reiating to immovable property sttuated tn two-districts, partty within its territorial jurisdiction and partly within the jurisdiction of Eiiaspaur Court 5. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the order impugned with regard to defendants’ application under Order 7‘ Ruie 1Q 841 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby set aside. 6, So far as defendants' appiication under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC ie concerned, the same is required to be decided by the Trial Court on its own merits in accordance with law and the Trial Court is directed accordingly. 7. With the above observation, writ petition and Civil Revision are disposed of. n»..— Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge