^y ^^ ^—"" IN THE HK&H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPL/R WRIT PETITION Mrt.227)NO. \?->^ QE_2010 PETITIONER (Plaintiff) ^ Smt. Sharmishta Agarwal, wife of Dr. Arjun Lal Agarwal, aged about 51 years, resident of A9/2, Rajiv Nagar, Raipur (CG) Vs RESPONbENTS (befendants) -J ^^'6-'.. ^^^•- ^. ^^^ :\^y'y' L^>p" ^\^' ^ 1. Smt. Vimla Sharma, widow of Lote Mahesh Sharma, aged about 45 years. 2. Manish Sharma, son of Late Mahesh Sharma, aged about 24 years. '3. Mukesh Sharma, son of Late Mahesh Sharma, aged about 22 years. 4. Kumari Ritu S'harma, daughter of Late Mahesh Sharma, aged about 22 years. All residents of 2nd Floor, Saraswati Niketan, 21/501 Ramsagarpara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INt>IA L1 .rl //^ iff % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227} No. 1840/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Sharnushta Aganval Versus Smt Vimla Sharma and others ApDearance: Shri B.P. Sharnia with Shri Ajay Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D. Vaswani, counsel for the respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF mWA ORAL ORDER (22.11.2010) The trial-court has allowed the defendants application under section 151 of CPC and has stayed the proceedings of Civil Suit No.58-A/2007. (2) The presenf plaintiff has filed a suit sometimes in September, 1999 seeking recovety of possession of two rooms in the house bearing No.21/501 Saraswati Niketan, Ramsagarpara, Raipur and for mesne profit at the rate ofRs. 10 per day from 24/09/1999. (3) The respondents have preferred a suit sometinies in March 2002 seeking a declaration that the same suit house is the joint property ofthe plaintiffs and defendant No.l Nand Kishore Sharma and the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favour ofdefendant No.2 (plaintiffofthe earlier suit) on 31/03/1999 is not binding on / them. ^ ;'-. ^ ^-^/ •^,. '^ ^^»^r -2- % (4) On application moved by the present defendants under section 151 ofCPC the trial in the earlier suit has been stayed by the court below. (5) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would argue that the respondents who are the defendants in the previously instituted suit have filed subsequent suit inimediately after filing the written statement in the earlier suit. The said institution of second suit is inalafide and is an effort to complicate the issue. According to leamed counsel the plea raised by the defendant by instituting the separate suit could have been examined and adjudicated in the previous suit by framing proper issues. In any case, leamed counsel would submit that previously instituted suit cannot be stayed in exercise ofpowers under section 151 ofCPC. (6) Leamed counsel for the respondents has argued that in view of natiire ofdispute, it is necessary for the plaintiffof the subsequent suit to seek prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by one Nand Kishore Sharma in favour ofthe petitioner and thus the second suit is necessary and unless and until validity of the sale deeds are determined the litigation would not attain finality. (7) In view of the submission made by the parties and more particulary in view ofthe fact that plaintiffs ofthe previous suit has nof filed any application under section 10 of CPC for staying the subsequent suit, it is directed that both the suits shall be tried by one 'court i.e. in the the Court ofCivil Judge, Class-I. h, ^ (8) With the above direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge O^A E