J;-nJ;€ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Sin^eBench : Hon'bleSlirtDH CivilRevision No.11 Oof2007 1^^ ;® Appllcant DefendantNo.1— Ubheram, S/G IViilan Sahu, 40 years, R/o Vijlage ^hinjhari, Tahsil Dongargarh, Dlstt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) versus Non-Applicants Parasram, S/o Keja Sahu, 90 years, R/o Viiiage Jhinjharij, P.H. No.22, Tahsii Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State pf Chhattisgarh, Through Coiiector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Civii Revision u/s 115oftheCodeofCiviiI Procedure Present : Shn Praful! Bharat,counselforthe apRlicant. Shri Akhii Agrawal, Panei Lawyer jfor the State/non- appiicantNo.2. J ORDER (Passedon 17th ofSeptember, 2007) Heard on admission. • (2) The appIicanVdefendant is aggrieved by^fc^ 2007 passed by the Civil Judge CIass-il, Dongargarh in Civil Sult N0.9-A/2006, wherel^ his application under Sectiors^^^^^l Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suitwas barred on the principie of resjudicatawas dismissed. !ll 1 ;i i' II 'l-i t tlill (3) Admittediy, non-appticant NQ.1/pIa Nq.9-A/2006againsttheappiicaht/defQndantfordeclaratjonoftitleover 78decimalsofiandoutofKhasraNo.293(oJdKhasraNo.244)situated in Viilage ^hjnjhari, Patwari Cii^ie No.22, Rew "Y. !:|j ; ^- ^- 1 1: •^ Nagar, Tahsit Dongargarh and for permanent injunction to restrain the applicant/defendant from interfering with the possession of non- app!icantNo.1/plaintiff. (4) The eariier suit, i.e.,Civil Suit No.10-A/20Q6 was filed by the appiicanVdefendant herein before the Civil Judge Cias^^^ for permanent and mandatory injunction against non-applicant No.l/piasntifT herein in relatlon to land Khasra No.321 area 1.64 acres situated in Viilage Jhinjhari- In that suit, despite the fact that the appiicanVdefendant herein dld ncrt make any ave^ relief in relatipri to Khasra No.293 area 78 decimals non-applicant No.1 /plaintiff hereln S^a^ to show the conduct of the jappjicant/defendant, in the written stafement averred that the applicanVdefendant herein was a!so interfering wjth his possession over the land Khasra No.293 area 78 declmals and a^ Board of Revenue. No reiief was claimed by either party in rfeiation to this iand. (5) The earlier sult fiied by the appilcant/defendant herein was dismissed. A finding on issue No.5 was recorded that since non- applicantNo.l/pialntiffhereindidnotadduceanyevidencein^^re his pieadings regarding Khasra No.293 area 78 decimals, no finding '(••'.. : ' \ ! • ' ^ 11.''/ '• '. ' , •• :' 11; 1; . ' could be recorded on the issue. ^. 1 l:li (6) The application filed by the appiicant/deferidant herein under Sectlon 11 of th^ Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on the ground that the subject matter of the two suits was different because in the present syit, the suitlandwas Khasra Np.293 (o!d Khasra No.244) area ^ j - !^n 6.52acres,whereasintheearIiersuit,thesuitIandwasKhasraNo.321 area1.64acressituatedinVillageJhinjhari^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^ :^! I 'l;; I'i'it! ^n' •^. ^ (7) Learned counsei for the applicant/^ Ramadhar Shrivas vs. Bhagwandas, {2^^ ^3 SCC ^ ss}d ^g^ thatth^findingreoordedbytheCM^ earlier suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.lO-A/2006 on issue No.5 operafes as constructive resj&/c^ate. Irt^^^^^m iiable to outright rejectlpn. A^^^m issue directly and substantially and a competert merite. A matte .V- mad©a ground for defence or attack in the former suit. Slnce 4a-4he '£3 tit,~ 1.11 ppssent ©uit,1hesubject matter of the two suits is ^ntirely different and non-appliGantNo.l/plaintiffhereinwasinfactnotr^quiredtomakeany e^-A^A^ avermentwith regard to Khasra No.293 ^ it cannot be said that the rfile of constructive wsjodrcafa appiies to the preserrt case. It is ciear that in^^^^^t^^ recorded anyfindjng in relafiQri to Khas^ do so since the question of possession over Khasra No293^^^w^ matterdlrectlyandsubstantiallyinissueintheeariiersult^ ofconstructive ^iesjidfcafa engr^ the Code of Civii Procedure does not apply to the facts of the case. Thereisonemorereason^stowhythetrialCourtjwasrigM the appiication underSection 11 bfthe Code ofCivi! Proc^ ci^ar from the record, the previous suit v^s dismissed in fayour of npn- applicaht No.1/plai|itiff herejn and he couid ndt prefer any appeai agajnstthesaidjudgmentanddecree.Thepr^ Khasra Np293^re%652 acres, whereas in the|earlie^ M @ iii :1 ;1 .i -!; ;^1 lllj!li::li il!J;i!i .^-i ^: j ji!i i ^! w'im l^li iili. ;l i 1 -1-1 ':. i ]|3opal :«K^ L; s ! ;; U 4 was claimed inrelationto Khasra No.321 area 1.64 acres. Thus, the subject matter jn the present suit wa previous suit. The ease law cited by the applicant is distinguishable anddoesnotapplytothepresentcase. (8) For the Toregoing reasons, in my considered opinion, the jmpugned order dated 21 -08-2007 passed by the Givil Judge Class-ll, Dongai^arh in Civil Suit No,9-A/2006 does not sufter from any such 1 illegalityor manifest error as wouid warrant interferencs in this revis'ion; The civi! revision Is accordingly dismissed at th^ itself. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge II i! i II II ^-•.::' *""' }Km