(«, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0. <osl°2- OF 2006 PETITIONER /^^ ..^yfkj'^ ^•tip:^'^l'(:^i2-""""" %^; isa»' irun Kumar S/o Ramnarayan Devangan aged about 39 years, Mahamaya Para Purani Basti Raipur, C.G., through the .»*^ ( Syperintendent Engineer -circle Lower Division Clerk, Public Works Department, Raipur, Tahsil and District RAIPUR C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENT /' Gopika W/o Arun Kumar Devangan, aged about 28 years, R/o Near Bus Stand Dongargaon, Tahsil and Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VQS-SSSSS-GF-Mi APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THB-E»AT8RE v OBUMAMDAMUS/GERTIORARI-ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN ^^& HKEJaA'I'VRE^TC;. /• XI-HC-78 3^^{raRTO, aiTnwi6,(»it'iwy ^W^l fhW<h •!~'u•1"'• • •k'«s:i-^t • •• ^ir 200 <o 3n^?T Maw (•^t^<si<<tT) a.n^r^iTR'Hi* (raTSD^Tsbtlicb TOIIW wfer sn^r 'bwlfi'fli t<it«iTifte^t<R]«i< ^ail^irsn^T 8,12.2006 Snit. Rashnai Thakur, co luisel for the netitioner. Heard on admission. Bv wav of ttus writ peljition ffled uuder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioaer has challeneed the leeality, vaUditv aad propnety of that bart of fhe order dated 11.10.2006, oassed bv the IInd AdditionAl District Judee. Rainandeaon, by which. fhe learaed A.D.J. has (lismissed his application filed under Section 10 offhe Code ofCivil Procedure for stav ofthe Rroceedines of civil suit No. 36-A/ 2006 fiUd bv the respondent for a decree of restitution ofcoaiugal rights. A oerusal of the iniDUSEled order would show that petitioner had earUer ffled a siiit for divbrce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriaee Act and the aforess Court and an appeal aeauistl oendine before the Hieh CoTlrt. The petitioner had taken fhe eround that siace aa appcal imDUgaed order that earlier tc^ the facts aad circumstances camiot be staved. id sziit was dismissed by fhe trial the said iudginent of dismissal is is uendiae before fhe High Court against fhe said iudement anti decree, this suit for restitution of coniueal riahts cannot be oibsecuted. It also appears from the this, a sinular appUcation was filed bv the uetitioner before the sdid Court, which was disiaissed vide order dated 9.11.2005. The trlal Court has takeu this view that in of the case. this subsequenf^-suit P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *imcii a»Hi^ Tsg'.straicpr, siTflti'is, Ricii^y u-i 'P . Cs ^r\~L. ^; 200 C 3Ti^?rTaw (>iq^'a^) sn^rgirR^icb (ISTT3II^Ta>K S^t^V^S) ?RTTWBf5(T3(1^T - -2-- STllt ftie Needless to sav that dismissal of a suit under Sectioili have no impact on a seoarate of fhe said Act as both are footings. Moreover, when on eat was dismissed bv fhe said Coul aforesaid order would operate k staee of the same siut and ia vl C.P.0., au apoUcation ofsimilar There appears to be no itl< trial Court while reiecting an 4 C.P.C. on fhe same ETounds. The petition has ao merit. petidencv of an appeal aeainst the 13 of the Hindu Marriaee Act wiU ffled by the wife under Section 9 proceeduies based on separate [•Uer occasion, a simflar application t-t vide order dated 9.11.2005, the fes res nidicala in the subsequent lew of the provisions of Sectiou 11 luature would not be maintauiable. itleealitv in the order passed by tbe jipplication filed under Section 10 °bi<<f<-i<flf ii*idTfftecfl'<Ri*4i< ^atf^iTsn^T The same is dismissed iu Itmine. SdJ- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.