•<- HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) WRIT PETSTSON (227) No. 1211 of2009 PETJT80NER Defendant VERSUS RESPONDENTS Sita Bai, Wto. Babairam Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o. Village Amhar, P.S. Patna, TahsiS Bajkunthpyr, District Koria (C.G.) Kaiiash Nath Kushwaha, S/o. Shobhit Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 45 years, R/o. ViSSage-Amhar, P.S.Patna, Tahsi! Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) (PLAINTSFF) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the CoiEector, Koria (C.G.) (PROFORMADEFENDANT) Mr. A.K. Prasad, coune! for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL for respondent No.2/State. WRSTPETITION UNDERARTiCLE 227 OF TNE CONSTiTUTION OF IND1A ORDER (09.04.2Q09) Thepetitioner/defendant in thls writ petltion isassaiiing the brder dated 06.01.2009 passed by ClviS Judge, Ciass 1 Baikunthpur in Civi! Suit No,4-A/2002 whereby the court beiow has decided the prelimlnary issues in favour of the respondenVpiaintiff in respect of majntainability of the suit. 2) ! have heard counse! for the parties and perused the material availabieon record. 3) Contention of the petitioner/defendant is that since the sirriiSar suit between the same parties is pending, the suit filed iater on is not malntainable and therefore the issues decided in favour of the respondent/pEaintiff is not in accordance with law. AccordJng to the petEtioner/defendant, concEusion arrived at by the Court below hotding the suit to be maintainable is not correct. 4. V^hiie deciding the suit, the Court below has framed the following issues: . /- " (1) ' :TOT ^t ^Tl^wr ^rr^ ifT^ t ? (2) ^SIT ^T^t ^ ^T<^T <^T ^^fcT y<lf<T?'r1 ^? ^RT ^1^^<?<4> ^f^T f^TT f ? (3) ^EjT ^T^t ^ "^K ^f^l ^Y ^Riq|t{1 1 ^>T ^Tffl ^TcTT vfra^ ^Nt ^t WTift ^r ^rrf^R^rNt 'sitf^r f^Tf ^rr ^<*?^t (4) ^fr ^Nt ^ |qr^ '^pr w ^f^cii^t ^n^St R^y}5ii 'sm Ps^fSici f^rr 1urr ^WcTT (5) ^TK ^^i ^' ^i^l^di j in addition to the above-menfioned issues the court below has also frarned thefoiiowing additional issue: (6) <rar ^r. ^FK ^f4? 10 ^ / 2000 ^ dP<S|d ^^ ^ G{rf*ij-r| Ofc|Cig|\ ^T^ %=^R ^ft^ t ? ^f ^^TcR 'zit^ET t E 5< While deciding the preiiminary issues it has been held bythe court beiow that earlier the defendant filed an appiication under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected on 29.07.2003. The court below afso reiterated that once the application filed under Section 10 of the Code ofCivil Procedure has been rejected, the same issue cannot be decided in favour of the defendant and therefore, the application filed by him was rejected. 6. On perusa! of the record this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record nor does the order impugned suffer from any EEIegaEity warranting interference En exercise of the power underArtEcIe 227 of the ConstEtution of india. 7. Accordingly, the petition has no force and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge qy< y