(4) Krishna Kumari D/O late Brahmdutt Pathak, aged about 55 years, through Husband Ram Prasad Tiwari, R/O Vi!!age- Hariganwa,Post- Hariganwa, Police Station and .Tahsii— Shankargarh, District Sarguja, (Ambikapur), (C.G.) WRIT PE§ITION UIA 2;7 OE THE CONSITITQTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 934 of 2009 Basant. Lal Gupta VERBUS State of Chhattisgarh & others RESPONDENTS jWRI’I‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA! Present : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitiOnm‘. ' Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ShriAK Prasad, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER ; (Passed on 18.04.2011) The instant petition, tiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 13.01.2009, passed by the District W and Sessions Judge, Jashpur, in Civil Suit No. 2—A/09, whereby the trial court has held, issue Nos. 6,7,8, 8A, 8B and 9 shall be decided after recording evidence in the case. 2. Shri ’I‘ripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner g would submit, decisibnin‘the earlier suit operates as res— judicata in the instant suit and the instant suit is not maintainable, this issue can be decided as preliminary issue and the trial court has wrongly held, the same shall be 1 decided after recording evidence in the case. 3. On the other hand, Shri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would submit in the facts and ‘ 1 circumstances of the case, issues involved in the case are mixed question of law and fact and evidence is necessary for deciding the above issues. 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the'order impugned. In View of fact that issue Whether or not present suit is barred by principle of res-judicata is also a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any illegality in directing to decide the above issue after recording evidence in the case. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from mterfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases Where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7. The petition has y merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl— N.K. Agrawal: r Judge Sahu