^ MiaH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BIL^^'UR SingjeSeodi : tton'bte Shri Dilio Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Aoplicant Drfendant No.1 Civil Revision No. 119/2008 Gauri Stantetf Tiwari, S/o LtD<man Thmri, Aged about 50 years, R/o Shanltargarh, BeNnd Tateil Office, Tahsil Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G.) versus 1) Sarpanch, \Mage Samadih, Gram Pamhayat Chalgali, Pcritee StaSan Shankargarh, Tahsil Kusmi, District Surguja(CG) : 2) State of Chtottisgarh, Through: Cottector, Surguja, Ambikapur, Distrtet Suiguja (CG) ResfMnvlwiWSefBMtant fto.2 CLvil Reviskm underSection I'tSofCivil Procedure Code Resoondente/ Plainfiffs Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counset for ttie applicant. ORALORDER (Passed on ttis 14U1 day ofJuly, 2008) Hearel on admission. 2. The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 23.04.2008 passad by the 1st Chfll Judge Class-2, AmMlcapur, Surguja in civN SvM. No. 39-AQ006 whereby the Cairt deckled a (»elimins»y issue a^iinst Uie applicanffctefendant No.1 by holding that the decfeion in Civil Suit No.99- A/98 by the 1" CivH Jirige Class-l, Ambikapur on 7.3^005 does not operzrte as resyudScata in tte subsequent suit. 3. tt is not disputed in this appeal by the teamed oounsel for the applicant that neither the respondent/plainttff No.1 was a paity to the eariier suit i.e. Ciwl Suit No. 99-A/1998 nor was the question cHisctly and substanUaliy in issue in the subsequent suit was direcUy and sut^antolly in issue in the eariier suit. 4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, teamed counsel for the applirant placed reliance on S»xtfavs.Chlnnusamy ^Dea®by LRs. & Am:, 2007 AtR SCW 5543 and argued that the teamed trial Court white deciding the pretiminary issue has confined Bself only to Ihe feKt that ®ierespondent No.l/plainUff in the subsequent suit was not a party to the eariier suit. Leamed counsel for fte appBrant prayed for a ranand on the ground thsrt ttre ftlal Court ought to have considered other aspects <w tte apptfcafion ofthe principte of KesjucScata by passing a speaking ordw. 5. Having consklered the submission of tte leamed counsd fer ttie applteant, 1 am of ttie consictered opinfon that in view of the uncBspuled facts mentfoned above, ro useful purpow would be seived in acceding to ttie request of e teamed counset for the appticant because besktes the fact ttiat the respondenVplaintiff was not a party in ttie earlier SM|, e matter direcdy and substantially in issue in the subsaquert sirit was admfttedty not directly and substanfiatly in issue in the eartier suit In <his view <rf the matter, no inegality is seen in the condusfon cbawi by the teamed trial Judge. No interference is caBed for in ®(erc@eof re^sforal jurisdtefion. 6. The revjsfon is dismissed accordingly at the stage <rf admissfon. I.A.^to.1 for grant of stay is also dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Anjanl