c^'"'o/. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0.2^83 /2QQ5 PETITIONERS defendents ..^. isig y ^<^\ (^^ ^^ F-'-./ ./' Smt. Renuka Maity, aged about 32 Years, W/o Ravindra Maity Shop No. 3, Near GayatriMandir Road, Gali no. 2, opp.to Modi Ata Chhakki, Bilaspur (C.G.) Jitendra Chahil aged 35 Years, S/o Lakhbir Singh Chahil.Vidya Up Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Sangeeta Gupta Aged about 45 Years, W/o ArunGupta, R/o R-2, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF / CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENT Plaintiff / XI-HC-22 3^ ^Fn^ra'5 <^Tfl^'18<?^ [^<vii^^< 3TT^T^^ 3TT^?T^H' f^TT^3:n^T ^RW^rf^T 4-g | ^^fT $^^8eh_..toP.S^l/^ »»^»»»-»»»^f»r^ <<-< • «^»«», 39 200 3T^T^RH^T^f?cr IJil 2-7,7,2003 Shri A.V, Siidliar, coun^ / The pctitioncrs havc. tiie Constltution of India qi| 24.6.2005 passed by leeru^^ whereby leanied Ciyil Judg^ pentioiiers filed luider Sectji proceednigs of Civil Suit No,7|^ agajiist ttie peutioners lierem. Bdef facts leading to fi4j hereiii filed o. Civil Suit N0,^. claiiiiiiig the petitioiiera to be Para-1 of thc plaiut £in.d also 1, 2 & 4on tiie ground tliat all Das through a registered sale| herein have filed tlieii writtei shop ia question belonga 1J< posscssiou and the pctitiQuer^ herem. After filiiig of writte4 llled aii application under S| fartlier proceedio.gs of tlie sui-1 Snit, Uina Das filed a civil hereiix for dcclaration and io.1 Suit N0.4A/2003, but tlie s^ District Judge on 31.1,2q( plaiiitiffy respoudeut hereiii h4 ^el for the petitioner, pre.|ferrcd this petitiou undcr Article 227 of ^.estionmg ttie legaiity of order dated }d 5th Ci^il Judge, Class4, Bila.spur has rejected the applicatiou of tlie ^oi-i 10 of. tlte CPC fo staying tlie |A/ 2004 illed by the re.<3pondeut IierciDi cbi^?^i41Ti ^t^i^T^te^^^K ^3Tf^TT3n^T iig of this pemioii are fhat respondent A/2004 agaixist tlie petitioners hereiii her tenaiits ia Shop No,3 iiieiitioned in agaiiist the otiicr teuaiite of Shop N05. tiie fbur.shops were sold by Sait. Uma deed dated 14,6.1999, The petmoners 1 st^.tenient denyuig the fact tliat fhe o the respoiideiit hereia. she is iii hcrcta werc the tenajits of rcspoudcut statement tlie petitioner No.l liercm sction 10 of the CPC fbr staymg the on tlie grouiid Uiat her iiiotlier naiaely suit agaiiist tlie plaiiitiff/respoiKieiit unction, which was registcrcd as Civil mie was bv ffae Addittonal 04 and after that judgement the .s filed tlie suit for evictiQii aRai&st the XI-HC-22 3^5T^T f^Tt^3TF^T ^RW^cT 7S{ •^Nl<nq, riiTf|y<|^, fsj^iy^ 3TT^7T^^' 9 ^ ^W^[ ^RT^ v----- ------ ^ 200 40 W^T?;RITW^rf??T -f-L^ CM^^^^ H\H^\ ^f (Wt' ^rFRTC ^3Tf^T3T?^T peUtioners herein/ defendant possession of other shops, It that thc. pctitioncT No. 1 hcrciaj ^iid otlier persons., who ai'e iri b.as been Bientioned ia the apphcation , bctag thc daiignter of Smt, Uma Das, is m possessioii of sliop iii c^iestion as the owncr aiid m that shop has fiirther been . m^iitiouecl iii the l?ed by the oixler of disaiis^al of suit, ]aii appeal before tliis Cozirt, which is stiil pendiiig, thereforc, issue iiivolved in. both th-6.suite is saj3ie a3id she is nimimg STD PCO. 11 appMc^tion that being aggrie^ SBit, Uina Das ha^preferred decision of fhls Court m the present suit. However, 'kamq vide iisipugiied or-der on fhe g regaixiiiig fiHiig of appeal fuid bv thc iB.offacr of defeudairtj declaration and mjunctton, w} of rent and eviction, Thercfort Iprevious suit will efibct fhe declslon of \d Civil Jiidge nyected the applicatiDii b)und fhat no docuiiient has beeu filed ^lso on the grouud that eai'Iier suit filed NQ^l/pctitioucr No,l hcTcin was for ^iercas th.e suit m .questk)u is fbr ^rrears e, the issues mvolved m.both the suits are riQt direcUv aiid substaiitiyiv sanie, I have heaiTl leaniecl co Leanied coiiusel for tJif of aDpeal gomg to enect tiic | proceedmg of the suit fikd }\ been ^taved bv fhe leamed Ci| Provssions of Sectk>n | shall pTQceed wUh ths tricu qj also directhi cuid.substantian betineen fhe same pmi-ies, orj ofthem clcuin ~litigating~urzdQT\ hii^el for the petitk>uer on adiiiissiou, ^ petitioner siibinitted that thc decision |decision of preseut suit, tliereforc, tlie ' |y the rcspondent hercin. ought to have |/il Judge uuder Section 10 ofUie CPC, 10 of tlie CPC euvisapes that ^no c^ari any su7t 7n ivhieh the mafter in issue is [y m issae m a preinausly mstituted suit \heuv€enpames under imzom tfwy or any the sar/ze titl& ivhere szich sziif. is pending ^). XI-HG-22 3TI^T^T f^Tt^W^T ^iW^rf^T 3^T ^TRI^PT, i5Tft^TT^^ [®1^1I^^< 3TT^Tq^^' flmTFTTgWRF"'"""^"""^" ^R* 200 3Tf^T^cfrW^f?cT 3 inihs sam.8 or any Qth^r Couri fn India Tiaving juriscliciion io grant ihe deckiration and injunctiou is tlie preseut suit Earlier sui^ respoudeiit hereio. was for cle^ chi<4t<n41»i *4i^<nT^tel:?i'<Ri^R ^3Tf^T3:TT^?I relief clairaed, Ncnv thc question is wh^thcr thc issiics nivohred iu thc suit filed by Smt. Uma Das°m<ther of petitioner No, 1 herem for |lii^.ctly aiid substantifctlly m issue iii filed by Siiit. UBia Das against tlie ^lai'atioii oiid iiijunctiou iii respect of tlie disputed shop aa.d other sr{.ops ou the ground that wheu shc sold tlie property to respondeat h^rem the sliops m qucstton werc iiot mcluded m the deed aiid |)v fraud these shops werc included m tlie said sale deed aiid tliis qucstiou aiid other shops wc suit was disnii^sed ^fter fuU trial, Therefore, the issue iiivolved ^ii this sxiit was whether tlie shop iii bc sold by Smt. Uma Das-motlicr of petittoner hereia or not to ti|ie respondent herem or whefh.er by committiiig fraad on the motr^er of the petitioner No, 1 hercm these shops were iticluded ui tlie s^d s^le deed. Whereas, iii the present Stiit the issue iiivolvecl is resar<| 1961. In this casc thc triaJ c| wliefher the landlord aad tenai parties and whether the rcsp^ decree against fhe petifck)ners| iiiig C, G, Accoiiiinodation Coiitrol Act, Diirt is rcqziired to look into tne facts iit relationslilp is exismig befiveen tlie pndeut herein is entitlecl for eviction hereiii iii view of Uie provisions of Seotion 12 ofthe AccQmmodation Coiitrol Act, Therefore, the issues, which arc to bc decided ia fh^ pr^seut suit aiid thc issucs/which were to be dccMed m the pij^vious suit, are ueitlicr directty nor substantially invoh^ed m the ^ nxother of petitiouer No.l he4 ^victioii suit. Even other^dse, if the ['eia succeeds iii tlie appeal pendiiig XI-HC-22 ^ocf ^Tm^FT, i^xft'H^K^ f^^ll^y 3TS^Tq^^ ^i^ns gwr^"9"0"'*"""^^' ^n[ 200 42 3TT^?T^)T ^il^^n^r ^RW^cT / ^- / / ^ 00 ^ 3T^T?^TSR:^f -^4 before tliis Court, tlien she -^ shops arid for tliat pui-pose caniiot bc stavcd for iadeftn.ite Hence, the pmvisions atfrracted m this matter aiid coiiiBiitted £tiw ixifimiitv or iUej As 5ucli» writ petitiou is not| dismissed ?jid it is accordinglly ItseU'. Consequently, M. (W.)P. also disinissed. |ill be entitled for pos^e^sion of &iut. tlie evictioii proceediiigs of this suit ibcriod, tif Section 10 of the CPC are not ^o 2iiy view, fhe trial Coun has not '^ality iii passiiig the inipugned Qrder, iiiaiiitaio.able. saiae is liable to be ^ly dismisscd at thc'adniissiQU stage No.2801/05 mid I.A. No.6335/05 cbj^?^41^ ^I^^T^f^'ifa^lT ^>3:rf^R'3TI^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<tit^^)