,-y ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT »NO. O^ CIVIL RBVISION N0. /2007 APPUCANTS DEFENDANTS \^ '/^y'' / £~./ fy ../w c^ ^v .. ^••-" 11 Dhansit Tirkey, S/o. Late Harsai, Aged about 50 years, 2] Chonhas, S/o. Late Harsai, Aged about 48 years, 3} Mado @ Pyari Wd/o. Late Harsai, Aged about 70 years, AU above resident of VUlage Jarhadih, P.S. Batauli, Tahsil Sitapujr, Di.strict Surguja (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS ^^rt. Leparam, S/o. Tandel, Aged about 60 years, Filmon, S/o. Tandel, Aged about 50 years/ Manoj Kumar S/o. Manoranjan, Aged about 35 years, •J' <<^ €A} Niranjan, S/o. Manoranjan, Aged about >^) \^ L ^ 30 years, Smt. Magdali, W/o. Manoranjan, Aged about 60 years, Atmaram, S/o. Late Amarsai, Aged about 45 years, 7] Lolas, S/o. Late Amarsai, Aged about 40 years, 8] Vijay, S/o. Late Amarsai, Aged about 38 years, ^<?xi\<v ^^ ^6 ^' ^ ^ 9] Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late Amarsai, Aged «.y^" about 34 years, 10] Ku. Nemi D/o. Late Amarsai, Aged 47 years, 11] Siuul Kiunar, S/o. Late Amarsai, Aged ^ about 35 years, AU above are resident ofViUage Jarhadi, Police Station Batauli, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) ^12] State of Chhattisgarh, through: CoUector, Surguja (CG) ^Respondentfdefendant) w'" 115 OF OF CIVIL ^.L...... 311^1 wy^n^iCTW ^- <<m<ni n»*i ^o^'^lFtl^T, '®1cft^Tl^,^Kti'My. ^^....^.^...^....,^....,—^200^ 311^1 "*W? ("^tf^?) ^WW< «IC<1 ^ll' S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. 28.08.2009 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advj^cate for applicants. Shri Arun Shukla, Advocat^ for respondent No. 1 to 11. chi^{d^^'W:Riff'^1^^<^^l< ^?3iRPT3tI^[ Aaarwal Ms. Sangeeta Mishra^ P^ No.11. With the consent ofthe pai nel Lawyer for State/respondent ties, the matter is heard finally. The^instant revision is c|irected against the order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P/5), ^hereby and whereunder the application ^preferred by the appl^ant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sectioi? 11 of CPC has beeil dismissed. The question involyed in tl|is revision jsveryshort, whether pr notthe syit filed bythe respon(ent isbarred by principJes ofrie^- judicata. The Trtbunal, whiletdetiding the appllcation, recohded ^ finding that:the suit is not barr^d by prJncipjes otjss-|udicata, without goir|g into the merifs 6f t(e case and without perusing the pleadings and judgment In th? e^rlier suit,as well as pleadmgs c^ this suit, which is pre-r^quisite to Section 11 OfCPC. ; framing preliminary issue in this jecide theapplication filed under The trial court oyght to hsjve decided the application after regard and therefore, the order passed by the trialcoyrt deserv^s to be and is accordingly set ^s to ^ira^r^^T^m^r<WTRm?—FS/95—11 /2008—i,00,000. \\} 011^1 ^^W OTy3H^?[iFWF Sahij "3^ ^l<ll<rt^ ^xi1«4t<o,t^TRiy *11*ICTI WIte- -^^00 ^n^r^f^K (yi^yi) C«iw<tifta <aiA<i triat aside and it is directed issue of res-judicateLafter framii| and after hearing both the partie^ Accordingly, the revision i^ '). 4>i^^i^ *ii^<?ff ^f 'fe^t <rai^i< ^T^iRi*i ^i^fi the trial court shall decide the g preliminary issue in this regard in accordance with law. allowed. No order astocosts. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ,^