itstioner ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGAR" AT BiLASPUR WriS Pststion (C} No. 1773 of 2010 Smt.Ramani SOR!. wifs of Shri ShagwaS Soni, aged about 43 ysars, resicient of Geetanjaii Nagar, Kashyap Colony, Biiaspur, Tshsl! & District Biiaspur (CG) ResDorsdents its Vsfsus 1. Smt.i^sla Dubey, '.wfe of Shri T.N.Dubey, aged sbout 50 years. 2. T.N.Dubey, son of Shri Chandrika Prasad Dubey, aged about 50 years. Both rasidents of GeetanjaS! Street No.6 Kashyap Colony, Bllaspur, Tehsi! & District Biiaspur (CG) w. ^? i.'Sate of Chhattlsgarh, fhrough fche (C< Collector, Biiaspur (Writ Petition underArticis 226/227 ofthe Constltutson of india) (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Prsse Mr.B.P.Sharma, counsei forihe pstitioner. Mr.Amrifo Das, counse! for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Sus'riii Dubey, Govf.Advocafe for rssponseRt No.3;'State. |?N'ISS<P ORAL ORDER ?R (Passed cn 18"' August, 2010) 1. Heard. th 2. i have perused the order dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed bythe 8 Addiiionat District Judge (F.T.C.), Biiaspur, in Civii Suit No.4A/10, whereby the 8 Addltional District Judge has aliowed the appilcation fiied by the respondenis under Ssction 12 of the Cods of Civi! Procsdure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') and has dismisssd the suii fiied by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsei for ihe petitioner submits that on ths bssis of previous Civi^ Suit No.489-A'2005 fiisd by mother of the pstittoner i.e. Vidya Devi against the raspondsRts, the present suit has been dssmissed by the Court beiow by onginai misapplylng the provisions of Section 12 of ths CPC, aithough property in dispute ofthe present cass wss heid by Vldya Devs, mother of the petitionsr, but subsequentiy, the present petittoner hss purchased the suii litii.[; 1 i^ ?T :;?iTr !i; ^^EiS'"'^^^ iili'sii!;i";iiii;ii!ti]?a;i.M ,.;ttVila> ;:^s^. ;..^I^fc.:"3J .•«'^ /' %/. -.2.- iand whteh has bsen specificaiiy mentioned by mother of the petitioner In her previous suit. Evsn othepAise, prsvioussutt fe only reiated to one beeirt. tn boSh suits, parties are not same, property sn dispute is not ssme, csuss of action snd rstief are not same, therefore, ths presant petitfoner is not debarred rrom fiiing ctvii suit in fsrms of Section 12 of the CPC. 4. On ths other hand, iearned counse! appsaring for respondsnts No.1 anci 2 submiis that as psr order smpugnsd, order passed by ths Court beiow is the order undsr Order 7 Ruse 11 (d) of ths CPC, therefore, the prssent petitioner is having aStsrnative remedy of chaileRging the same before ths appeiiste forum. Thus, the pressnt petitson filsd under Arflcie 227 ofths Constitution of india is not maintainabie. 5. From perusai of the order impugned, it appears that suit of the petjtlonsr has been dismissed on the groiind of bsr created under ihs iaw i.e. in terms of Section 12 ofthe CPC. Section 12 ofihe CPC reads as undar:- "12. Bar to furthsr suii.-Whare a piainiiff is prsc!uded by ruies from iRstituting a further suit in respsct of any particuiar cause of acilon, hs shail not be entstled to iRstitute a sust in respect of such csuse of act'.on in any Court to which ihis Cocie applies." 6. in terms of Order 7 Ruie 11 (d) of the CPC, the piaini may be rejected if it appears from the statemeni in ths piaint to bs barred by any iaw. !n the pressni ease, after cons'.dering the previous suii and ths prssent suit, the Court bsiow has arrived at a findina that bsr has bsen crsated for fiiins subsequent suit under Section 12 of the CPC and ihe Court fcelow has dismissed the suit. 7. Admsttediy, the order is one under Order 7 Ruie 11 (c) of the CPC on the ground of bar for fsiing ths surt in terms of SectiQn 12 of ths CPC, thersfore, aiternativs remedy is avaiiabis to tha petitionei'/piaintiff, but reaso", best known to him, hs hss not chosen that forum. 8. Consequsnt!y, ths pstition is liabis to 'os dismissed on the ground of altsrnative i-en-iedy and ss hsreby dismissed. No ordar as to eosts. \ Sdl- T-P.Sharma Judge