?N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATIJRE AT BIXASFUR (CHH^TTISG&RH W.P,NG. OF 2001 PETITIGNER Jawahar Lal S/o Ram Praaaci Kashyap age<3 27 (Twenty Seven) years^ occuipation agriculturist resid^nt of an<3 Permanent Address at village B^aluXona, Post Office Mohara, Tahsil Palari^ District Raipur (Chhatfcisgarb)» VER3US RBSPONDENTS ..-/^ /y \& ^L.-'1'.- ^%.^ •" ^* 9?..-< '^: ..•''^' /t) '' ,••'* ^ cy ^ ^(^ «e €-' .^-^ ^" ..<° 1, Tahsildar Gopal Janghel aged 50 (Fifty) years of palari, Tahsil PalarJL^ Sub Division Balodaba^ar District Raipur* 2, United Cororaercial Bank, Branch Palari, ThroMgh : Branch Marxager^ Palari Suto-Division Baloda Bassar^ District Raip^r^ 3. Naito Tahsildar, Palari, Tahsil Palari^ IDistrict Raipur^ 4, Thes Stateof Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Revenue Oepartment^ Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5e The CoXlector^ Raipur^ Oistrict Raipur (Chhattisgarh) N-> r--i- ^ ^ y^^ P&TITION UNDER AaTICLE__226 AN^^^ THE CONSTITOTXON Oi' INDIA^ POR ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARY PROHIBITION, NANDAMtJ-S ETC.OR WY OTHER ^PPRpfRlATE, DIRECTIONCa ORDER;^ ^ Contd<»•«.2 €-• WiSi. XI-HC-22 ' §!;^ ~5^^{^I^^t^^<l<o,^^ ^IT^Ttp^ : W.I».NO.334/2001 . :^w^rwT?t^"Jr,^**t'<^^^^^^ '••""•;";-{^^sr;';';";:;"^""""":":""": .^n^r.^k fe-ii4> an^^i ^Ti?^"??fei 29-3-20^. M- ^ sv^ ^^•^rma;, l.e Dr»N^K^Shiik€ay lealctie® r^?3rt^N Hm^i "^ fe^l'1TN^K ^grf^RoTT^i Dy°»A^ocateeyGeneral, for the State» Heard. L^a|a^dF <?^ jsubmlts that as tAe^ actions of^^^^^r^ >^d^ is^ l^aj^^^^^ n^ tp tfae^ ^petALioner and,^ OEder-s earlierj passgd /!% fch^ Mi^ Court and as the property ^ ^ pf.the^petijLipner^ti^ put t<^, auct.i.on for recpvery of }• tteie lo^n aroou^A even when fe|ie loart MBS ^iiot taken by the pet ition^,; ttiis^GQiu^fe, ms-ist Fr om the records annex^d Fwttli tKe' petitj.on, .it appears that on an eartxer occasion to tfae High Court in a. wr.it 4%ber^Qre^. the petjubj.biierts£^therhad come ^tlt^on* T^e High| coi.irt granted ^ the rellef ;tothe"lpetxtJLIcaiej-'<sl; fa^ner inier,-alJlal;,d,irect:ing ^ ^^fs the Tahsiidar under Its JUd^ment 'S^ed^^-l'^'y^.Kw^f^'j the father of the petJAione^ shall ^'^^ttled^^^^^^ "i.'' r}.':"~- ' •J'/ objectj.OHSbeforethe Tahsi^dar an^ t^"ia4d; 'T^fasil.l^y sh^Il ; decide t^Q .•bB;j;ectN>Hsrr-a.n7alc4;o^aii<3je:;wJ^h^l^.^L:•|l^^^ .: | a ffe^r ttie^orders p^ss^a b^ It ^ppears "tft^J i^^^^t^ l.iiea.High;. C<9»rjt»'.4^®i9Ne<stlons •.,.... wel:^t'Ml^^nQ:^;^e~'o}^et:Loils..we^!.l<^,^d ^^a^^ |^^ei,,the &r^seRt:, i?e^ <^j [^fr^l^fe^ 511-^r ^r' feNa:nt^ w^^-^w^ BTRT^^ ^ f^zr ^T fileQ. a suit in the cour^ of Additional Dlstrlct Judge interwa'lia submitting thAt the property belonging to the petltloner nelther could aaction because the loan of .Lokdhan (Shodhya Rash be attached nor could be put to was tlme barred, the provisions Ka Vas.yl^) Adhinlyam* .was not applicable.^ \He also con^ended.that the loan was not talcen j either under the State s^onsered Scheme or socially desira< ble schemei» therefore^ t|ie Tahsildar should not issue any R.R.C. It was also cont^nded bfefore the civll court that the pEpperfcynwhich belon^s to the petltioner/plaintiff ^ould not be attacted oy ^ould not be put to auction^ The Bank and the other p^rtles appeared in the said civi suit and contested the abplication for grant of ad-lnt^rim injunction. The learned confronted with the face of pendency of the < would lie to the Hlgh Co as the Clvil Court has a j. trial Court rejected the said' application and while co^slderlng the prima-facie case observed fchat the suit p^iiaa-facte does not appear to be cognizable by the clvil 4 the injunction applicatil: the said order rejectingj plaintlff/petitioner hasj the High Courto In the issued to the other sidej pending ^ bourt <. It accordingly re jected bn^ Undisputedly ^ aggrieved by appllcation for injunction^ ^he flled a Miscellaneous Appeal i^ ^aid appeal^ notices have been and the s ald appeal 1s stlll legal posltipn that on the slvll suit^ how a wrlt petition b.rt» Shri Verma submits that Iready observed ,that it would have GRPRJ—FS/31}—1/2001—50,000. ^ XI-HC-22 .aTT^r^. 'fN^'^^i I -^TTIaT ^^71 ^"^ ^T^PT, '^'yjl^, fN^fRT3< T5Ti3^f^-£rnE" "W£. 200 <. 3T^i^^i:fT^:^ - 2aaB -^N^H -^TR^ ^ ftr?R~ Tfef^K '^W^R.STT^T no.jurisdiction to try thl suit» the petitioner is left wlth to no remedy bQt^pproach th+s Court < wttiie deciding the applic^ The argument is mis4onceived» The civll suit has not been dlsmissed for want o^ jurisdlctlon^ The clvil Court fcion for grant of Injunction has observed. that the civll C^urt may not have jurisdlcfclon.to decide the suit. It is ncpt in dispute before today» the civll suit is 4til3' Pendxnga decide the suit^ It 1s nQt in dispute before me .that as on Shrl Verma next subm4ts that subsequent to flling of the suitji as number of the civll Court would have no events have taKen place and as the jurlsdlction to grant the relief to the petitioner^ this C^urt must interfere^ in the opinion of thls Court, th^s argament cannot be accepted<» Once it is admitted by th4 petitloner that at his instance a civil suit is flled a^d the same is pending, then^ so long as the civll sult is exercise its jurisdlctlon is an alternative remedy 4 In fche present case^J and instituted/ subsequent to pending, this Court would not under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Indla^ E^ren otherwise, when a civil sult ^^tf. 9^Ws€^^ nd/is available to the petitioner^ this Courfc may refuse to 4^t@^rfere i^ a partlcular matter< the suit has already been flling of the suit the petitioner [^^f^r Wt^T ^T f^N^'3^1 pOTl^F ~WW^ T ^T^T^^ITWTificr ^iT^feft^ 'HR^t '^ fe^ TJ^T^K ^T -J_ J has come to this court .Lnj this wrlt petltion. Whether the Tahslldar had the jur|isdiction to attach the property9 whether the R.R.C could be issued, whether the plaintiff had taken the toan, whether he t&-3an excluslve owner of .the property; are al'i que^tlons of'-facts^ All such questions can very-conveniently be •fcontested ±n fche Civll Suit^ It Is however^ made clear.that jlf the suit o.f the plaJLntiff i^ dlsmissed for want of jurj.sdlctlon^ then, the petitioner would be entitled to appr<bach a competent forum^ At this stage^ it is not possi.ble the matter^ for this Court to interfere in /Rao/ The petltion is di^missedo Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge GRPRJ—-FS7311—1/2001—50,000. + '^^