t s ^A^ j^ .^ i^^ My" ••^y PAGE No..i» ^y-y <1>-" IN THB HIGH COITRT OP CHHATTtSGARH. AT BUASPUR (C.G.l ^o Civil Revisicm Nb.:-' / 2006. (S.& APPUCANT: - (Defendant) ^ ^ Juzer Husain, Age-37 Yrs. S/0 Hussaini Bhai, R/0 -Khaparganj, Bilaspur, District:- Bilaspur, (C.G.) ;VERSUS: CIiatixAfauj Maamurka, Age»64Yrs. S/0 Uite Mahvir Prasad Muiiar^i, R/0: - Gayatri Mandir Road, Vinoba Nagar,Bilaspur District: - BUaspur, (C.G.) -: MBMO OF REVISION UNDER SBCTI01I 23 (El OF C.G ACCOMMODATION CONTROL J^T : - KBSPOmDKRT: - [ ^^^ XI-HC-22 ^STT^T'^r f<-li<=h 3TT^T $^^i<^ ^f^a •s-^^ni^R.'^'OT^.'^TOy WH^TI.WW^.^A..^-J^.^3^ • "^ -200. 'f^^s?' ^TI^T ^cIT^R '^F^T 21.6.2006 Sliri Ajad Siddiqui, couiise| Shri K.A, Ausad, vSr. Advc^< counsel for tiie respondeut, Heaixl on admission, This is a revision filed u/: Contool Act agamst the order da|t ConfroUiiig Autliority, Bilas]j)i A/90(6)/2003-04 whei'c'by an. tenaiit for stay of fhe proceedui^s dismissed, Leanied coiuisel for tlie 4t regardmg Qwnership ofthe SmtKadeera Bi & aaother and respoudeiit, ia whicli it has to b^ tlie teiianted preniises and premises is determiiied, flie-proj Act woukl not be mamtamal!)le 'Autlwrity (for short "R.C.A"). ^ proceGdiiigs in smiultaiieous reason aii application for stay R,C.A. was filed, which was couiisel argues fliat under the p( of CivU Procedure, the subseqijie] should have been stayed. for tlie appUcant. catex assisted by Shri A. P, Dubey, 23(E) offlie C,G, Accomniodation ijted 21.3.2006 passed by tlie Rent )ur iii peudiiig case No.3- a^plication filed by tlie appUcant/ luifes of fhe aforesaid case has been teuab-ted uiildss 1^P?fepft;T TTiT[<5Tf'? "fe^i' iF^^.K •^•3Tf^3TT^T Ipplicaiit siibm.its that a civil siiit premises is penduig belween [Chaturbhuj Murarka, the present decided a&to who is the owner of the ownership oftlie tenaiited Deediag u/s 23(A) ofthe aforesaid before the Rent ControUing te further submits that bofli fhe caiinot be drawn and for fhis jof furtlier proceedtags before the ^ismissed by fhe R,C.A, Lcanied rovisions ofSection 10 ofthe Code ^ent proceediiig before the R.C.A. niaMiie.r h XI-HC-22 3^T^T r^jch 3^1 ^RW^rf^f ^£?^Tq^i^. ^WT^, T^TF?^ C-(t, -TO 'WTCTT^TN?*''^"'*'^^*^'^**'**'*''**'*''*'''^ 200 ^? 'i^is?" ^STT^T ^?iT^R ^rfin - 7-- ^hich beft¥eeii coufcts Section 10 ofthe C.P.C. with tlie tdal of aiiy suit ia dii'ecUy and substaatially iii is^i bet^een fhe saine parties, or or aiiy of thein claioi litigatiiig sirit is peiicliiig ia fhe. saoie o^ jurisdiction togrant the reUef limits of ludia established or aiid haviag Uke jurisdiction, or l^ One of flie essGiitial feaUl proccediugs before flie two the proceedio.gs are suits, fhe stayed, lu flie present case, adidu R>C.A. is not a suit, fherefore| piirview ofsection 10 ofQP.C. has rightly refused to stay the There is 110 iUegality m th^ not iacliiied to interfere with tli nierits aiid fhe saisie is maiiitauiability of tlie proceedii^ pendency gf suit. before flie between tlie two parties ie,, Smt Kadeera Bi& aiiofher shaU R.C,A. aiid necessaiy orders p^ovid' clfeiined, coiltiaued sh^U ^T^if^FTM' TH3^f ^ fe^l' <[^ ^K ^rsTi^ww^T 'ovides that no coiirt shall proceed flie matter in issue is also ue m. a previously uistituted suit tlie parties under whom. tiliey under tlie saaie title where siich auy otlier couit ia India having 1, or ia any Coiirt beyoud tlie by tlie Central Goverament ?fore flie Supreme Court. res of section 10 CPC, is fhat tlie must be flie siiits aiid unless ^ubsequent proceediiig caiinot be diddttedly flie proceeding before fhe it caiinot be stayed withni the ^iid the Rent ControUiiig Authority fi^rther proceediiigs. ^ order passed by the R. C,A. I ani le said order. The revision has no However, the question of lin^s before tlie R.C.A. on accouut of court for declaration of title the present respondent and be cousidered aiid decided by fhe disnliissed, <}ivil beN/een be passed on tliis pouit also. ^:^r_JL_^^ XI-HC-22 -^^r-^S^Sd^, ^TlI^^I^ I^HRTy _.,....^..'.^....~?..o.,. ^I^^Tf^HP^ CT^T'^1 f^W^^T ^RW^if^ f^J& ^-^ 3T?^T ^<IT^R ^Tf^T courfsel At tllis stage, leaaied the fiual orders beforc the R.C.A.I June 2006, therefore, flie certifieijl The prayer is aUowed. Certified Copy offtiis ordeil be giveu today itself '^FrfcN^T TIFT^f ^ Fs^l ^f^K . ' ^ ^P? ^TT^T for flie applicaat submits tiiat are goiug to be passed 011 22nd of •V copy offhe order be given today, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r- [Tft^i!f^ y