c5) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRST PBTITION ( 227) NQ. 5688/2011 PBTITIQNBR RB8PONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Vyasnarayan Gupta, aged about 62 years, son of Late Man.rakhaiilal Gupta, resident of Aarang, TehsIL Aaraag, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)—(DefendantNo. 2) KamLaIfiarayan. Gupta, aged about 57 years, son of Late Maaralchaiilal Gupte, resident of Guptapara, Aaraag, Tah, Aaraag, Distt. Raipur (CG) (PlaiatiSSl Shivnarayan Gupta, aged about 63 years , S/o Late Manrakh.anlal Gupta, R/o Aaraiig, TehsU Aarang, Distt. Raipur fDefSo. £). Jainarayaa Gupta, aged about 59 years, son of Late Maoraldiaalal Gupta, R/o Aaraag, Tehsil Aarang, Distt. Raipur (DefNo. 3). Sm.t. Kusum. Gupta, aged about 50 years, W/o Rajendra Prasad Gupta, R/o Juna BUaspui^ Krishna Ward BUaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (DefNo. 41 Sint. Ansuiya Bai, aged about 80 years Wd/o Late Maarakhanlal Gupta R/o Aaraag, TehsU Aaraag/ Distt. Raipur (DefNo. 5). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Distdct Collector, Raipur (CG) (Def. No. 6). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THB CON8TITUTION OP INDIA. (SB :Hon>ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present'.-Shri Ansuman Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. forthe State/respondents No. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 not noticed. ORDER 1. (Passedon 12/10/2011) By this petition nnder Article 227 of the ConsUtution of India petitioner has challenged fhe legality aad propriety of tlie order dated 10/8/2011 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G,) ia civU suit No. 28A/2011 whereby appUcation filed under Section 10 read wifh Section 151 ofthe Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been disniissed, ff( ?t^ 1 \y^ i •v!fyii .^^ -^ @ Shri Ansumaa Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner aad Shii Suniit Jhaawar, P.L. for the State/respondents No, 6 are heard, Copy of the judgment of first suit, copy of the plaint of civU suit, copy of fhe order impugned aad copy of fhe application filed under Section 10 read wifh Section 151 offhe Civil Procedure Code, 1908 penised, As per judgment dated 31/8/2006 passed by 13th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Raipur (C.G.) in civU suit No. 44A/2004 suit was disinissed as not niamtaiaable on the ground ftiat fhen plamttfiT naaiely respondent No. 2 is not uicluded entire property which was siibject niatter of pardtion. Appeal against aforesaid judgraent aiid decree is still pending before fhe High Court. After aforesaid judginent aad decree and oftier co-owner namely Kamalaarayaa Gupta respondent No. 1 has filed aaofher suit for partition ia which plaiatiff has iiicluded property which were left by respondent No. 2 ui first civU suit (Para-5 of fhe plaiat) even other wise factuia of first civil suit has been specifically pleaded in Para - 4 plamt iii subsequent suit. In fhese circunistaaces by disinissiag appUcation filed under Section 10 read wifh Section 151 offhe CivU Procedure Code, 1908 Court below has not coinniitted any illegallty, I do not find aay jurisdictional error or grave Illegality ia the order inipugned requirmg any uiterference ia exercise of supervisoiy jiirisdiction. Consequenfly, petition is liable to be dismissed aiid is hereby dismissed, No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge <A