.A, .*! J^i r\a" c./ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N03^)^ 72005 Q ?~ PETITIONER Defendent Sunil Gurudwan,Aged about 35 •"• - . years, S/o R.S. Gurudwan t^^~ ^ A.yH^A^'y" ..••?"<<Vv^ R/oJftR-e No. 2, Gayatri ^a9»>r Road \~^>'f^ . / ^. ^••;^>*' ^ in front of Modi Ata Chakki, Vinoba 3>;"^"'^'<1" y/^!^" ^' Nagar Bilaspur, Tah. & Distt. ^*''-^'^.^*" Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ,A RESPONDENT Plaintiff Smt. Sangeeta Gupta Aged about 45 Years, W/o Arun Gupta, R/o R-2, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3Ti^?T^)T f^rf^3n^r ^W^rf^T -^ ^si^^n ^^ach 3^T ^N!crl^, %5rftaTR', f^dH^< ^^.^P.U^^ 3Z ^ 200 3Tr^T'^<ITWdN 27.7.2005 Shri A.V, Sridhar, counsl Thc pctitioRer has prcf^] tlie. Constitution of India qi| 24.6.2005 passed by lesru4 whereby leamed Civil Judg^ petitioner filed under Secti^ii proccediiigs of Civu Sziit No.*^ the petitioner hereia. Brief facts leadmg to fil^iig Iierein filed a Civil Suit No.^ claimiiig the petitioner to be Para-1 of thc plajiit aiid also & 3 on tlie ground tiiat all tlie| through a registered deedj ha^ filed his wiitten statein^] question belongs to the the petitioucr nerem. was the ^( ofwritten statement the pett| Secuoii 10 of the CPC for staj>< cn. the grouud fhat Sixit,. plaiiitiff/ respondent hereiii fo| registered as Civil Siiit No,4A| tiie Additional District Judge the plaintifiyrespondent herci petitioner hereiii/ defeiidaiit chi<4?<n41<ri ^i^^T^te^l'iI^^iT ^3Tf^T3TT^T v el for the petitioner. Irrcd this pctition ziudcr Articlc 227 of t.estionmg the legallly of order dated |d 5th Civil Judge, Class-I, Biiaspur has rejected. tlie appUcatioii of tlie 10 of the CPC fo staymg the A/2004 filed by the i-espondcnt herem respo^ident iiig of this petitton are fhaf respoudeiit iA/2004 agaiiist Uie petitioner herein. ber teiiaiit 111 Shop No.4 iiientioued iii ^.gaiast othcr teuants of Shop Nos, 1, 2 fbur shops werc sold by Smt, Uma Das dated 14.6,1999. The petitioner herem |xit deiuriiig th-e fact tliat Uie shop iii herein^ she is iii possessioii aiicl }euaxit of rcspoiideut hereia. After filing loner heren.i filed aii application under ^ving the turther proceedmg-s of the suit Das filed a civil suit against the declaratiou aiid iiijiuictioii^ wliich was 2003^ biit the samc was disniisscd by [on 31.1.2004 aiid after tliatjudgement n filed the suit for eviction against the otlier persoiiB, who ai'e iii possessioii Uba ajid XI-HC-22 3Ti^T^)T f^TT^W^T ^iW^cf 3^r ^IKT^P[, ^xfH^Ko, ^1^^< 3TT^T^?^F ^TTq^TgilTT^"'"0"""""^'" W^ 200 f^^' 33 3TT^T^TFW;HfN' -z te^iaiit th^t sbt sllill pre^eut of ofher shop^. It has been petitioiier hereixi^ beiiig tiie of shop iii quesuon aud ta further been mentioned io. the! orcler of dismissal of suit, Sti befbre Uiis Court/which. is ^i|iJ both tlie suite i©saine aiid de|c wiU efifect the dccisiou of rcjected tlie apptk'atton vlde documeut has been fikd reg^ grouud that eariier suit fi|e cleclai'atiou aiicl iiiJLiuction, w^i of reut and cvictioii, Thercforb are not directly and substan.tife; I Iia^e heard leamed co1 Leaiiied counsel for th^ of appeal gonig to effect the procccding of the slut filcd been stayed bv the leamed C11 Provsions of Section 11 sJzall prQc^ed wiifz ili^ irial q/f also directly and aubQtantiaUy betw^en the sarae panies, or pi qf them ctcnm Jmgatmg under in the same or any other Cou^. relief clairned.y ^N?<rt41Ti ^i*4<nT^'tel:A<r3i<-di< ^)3Tf^T3Tr^r nientioned iii tlie applicatioii tliat tlie of Srat. Uaia Das, ia hi possessiou shop hc is donig his busioie^s* It has apptteation that Mmg aggrieved by the ^t. Uma Das ha^( preferrcd aii appeal peiidiiig, UierefQre, issue iiivolved iii ^isiosi of tliis Court in. the previous suit siiit, Howevcr, lcamcd Cwil Jzidgc ^mpugned order 011 tlie ground tliat 110 ^rdmg filiiig of appeal aiid also on the bv tlie Siiit. Unia Das was for ^iereas the suit ui question is for aiTeai's a, the iasues iavolvcd in botn tlic sziits .fellv same, }insel for the petitioner on admission, peutioner ^ubmitted Uiat tlie decision d^cisioii of present. suit. tlierefore, the tlie. re^pondcnt hereia ought to hax7c wfiereas 1JY ^ilJudge mider Sectioii 10 oftlie CPC. p of the CPC envisages that "no coun any suii in wlzich tfze Tnaiter in issus is m i^aue m a prevkwQly inQiituted auit peizueen panies undenahQm ihey or any ^.he sarne title where such swt is pending in India hamng jurisdicnon io gram the XI-HC-22 ^cT ^TPn^T, ^xftWT^, M<rll^^< 3TTc^Tq^^ ^M^fi ^^Bch -t---0----*- ^F^ 200 34 CT^^T^T f^TT^3Tr^T ^RW^rfl^T W^T^aT^T^rfw chl^?d41^ HTRoff ^* iWt ^f^CT: ^3Tf^T3TT^T fllie TIierefbre ajid Now tlie question is wl~4 filed bv SBit, Unia Das for decl. snbstaiitiaJly ui isszic. mi thc pj Uma Das agamst the respou^ mjuuctbu m respect of the grouB-d th.at wheu she sold shops iii cfaea»tioii were iiot in( these shops were iiiclndcd iri dismissed after ftill trial, whether the shop in question Das or not to the respondeut. I-JL ou Snit, Um.a Das these shop? whercas, ia tfac prcsent suit Accommodation Control' Act, required to look mto the relatk^n^hip is existing bewf responcleut herein. is entitl^cl petitioucrs hercio. in. view of Accommodation Control Act. decided in the. prcsent suit an4 iii tlie previous suit, are ueitliegi the eviction suit, Eveii snccceds iii thc appcaJ. pcndirj. entttled tbr possession of suit proceedmgs ofthis'suit. cannotj fcUier Uie i^^ues in^volved iii Uie suit ^aration aiid io.junotiou is directly aiid t'eaen.t siiit, EajrMcr suit filcd by Snit, ftent lierem fbr declaration aiid di^puted shop aiidoth.er shops on the property to i^spondent herein. the bludecl iii the sale cleed aiid bv fraud luic sald salc dccd and this suit was ^fbre, the issue mvolved io. ftiis suitwas other shops were' sold by Smt. Uma ^erein or whether by coiDLHiittiiig fi-aud were iiioluded in tlie said sale cleed, jtfae. issue niz7olvcd is rcgardiiig C.G. .961. iu fhis case fh.e trial court is whether the landtord aiid tenant ^eeii Uie. pai'ties axid -wheflier tlie for evictioii decree agaio.st the |thc provisions of Section 12 of the iThereibre, the issues, whicti are to be the issues, whi<;h werc to be decided |r directly uor substan.tial4?r iuvolved iii if the saicl Snitiii Uina Das j.g before this Cozirt, theu she will be sjhops aiid for fhat purpose thc evictioii jbe'stayed for mdefinite period, .. facjts oth^r^ise, XI-HC-22 3T^?T^T f^TT^W^T ^RW^cT ^ET^nzn^ra-^ i?xft?FT^/f^Tray WH^TT^^T^ STT^T^ra^^ .^?:?.OJO~? 35 ^ 200 fc|<x4< 3TT^T?^T^K^f?cT 't/l nc!t Hence, the provisions attractecl iii this iiiatter aiid| committed auv inilrmi^ or ml As such, writ petltton 1s dtemissed aud it is itselL Conseqiiently, M,(W.)P,! also disinissed, ajccordiolgly chl^?d4)^ *4l^<nT^te^1'<^^lT ^3Tf^R'3:TT^?I of Sectioii 10 of the CPC. are not iri BIY view. tlie tiiai Coiu't has not lgatity in passiug thc mipugued ordcr. t maliitamable, saeie is Uable to be dismissed at fhe admissiDu stage N0.2792/05 aiid. I.A, No.6305/05 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge