IN THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Civil Revision No. [°\ /2011 APPLICANT Defendant no. 1 \\\ ^^••":..,,- .-/'^T*^ ij1^ p?e3°l".....-- o^d'"S3 ^ •^' NQN-APPLICANTS 'laintiffs ^••^' VERSUS 1 Atul Kumar Dubey S/o Vijay Nath Dubey, aged about42years, Occupation Architect, resident of Pratappur Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) /• DEFENDANT N0. 2 Krishna Nand Singh, S/o R.B.Singh, Aged about 36 years, ,, Sheekha Singh W/o Krishna Nand Singh, aged about 33 years, Both are resident Kedarpur, Near Pani Tanki, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil - Amb'ikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) Meena Dubey, W/o Atul Dubey, aged about 38 years, Resident of Maha Mrityunjay Bhawan, M.I.P. 3/12/134 Nehru Nagar, Riwa (Madhya Pradesh) State ofChhattisgarh: Through Collector, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) No. 1 and 2 are plaintiffs and no. 3 and 4 are defendant C1VIL REV1SION UNDER SECTION'TlSOF CODE OF ClVIL PROCEDURE DEFENDANT N0. 3 HIGHCOURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 19/2011 APPLICANT Atul Kumar Dubey Versus RESPONDENTS Krishna Nand Singh and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRIN.K. AGARWAL. J PRESENT:- Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and2. Shri Anant Bajpai, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent No. 4/ State. ORAL ORDER (13-4-2011) 1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant revision calls in question legality and propriety of the order dated 2-2-2011 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. l-A/2010 whereby applicant's application filed under Section 10(1)(2) ofthe Companies Act, 1956 has been dismissed. Facts of fhe case in brief are as under:- 3. Plaintiffs have instituted a suit against the applicant herein for relief of injunction restraining them from alienating or entering into a^eement of sale with regard to .suit property described in ScTtedule - A of the plaint inter alia on the ground thaf'the suit property is property of the company, the applicants have already resigned from directorship of the company, by taking benefit of the fact that there name has been recorded in the revenue records, they are entering into agreement of sale and want to seU v\ the suit property which is illegal and unauthorized. :T"^ECT-;~ A^ -4 •"L: 4. By filing application iinder Section 10(1)(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the appUcant has questioned maintainability of the suit on the ground that civil suit is barred under above provision. The trial Court having found fhe question raised is essentially a mbced question of law and fact which can be decided after framing specific issue and after recording evidence thereupon dismissed the application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on recprd, I do not find any substance in the revision. In abserice of any express or implied bar, civil court has jurisdiction to decide all the suits of civil nature and the fact whether or not the suit is barred under fhe above provision will be decided by the trial Court after framing issue in this regard and after recording evidence thereupon. Therefore, at this stage, the application has rightly been dismissed by the trial Court. 6. At this stage Shri Tripathi submits, the Registrar of Companies is necessary party in the suit. 7. This ground may be raised by the applicant before the trial Court which shall decide fhe same on its own merit in accordance with law. 8. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge