IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURrC.G.1 W.P fARTICI.E2271NO. \1 'L^> 72009 PETmONER PLAINTIFF -.^^. '•^^^ !l«A-' RESPQNDENTS : DEFENDANTS PunamSingh, aged about 46 years Son of Late Shri Raghunath Singh, Rajput, R/o. Ward No.4 Rajapara, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS Ghasi Ram Yadav, aged about 65 years, Son of VishalikYadav, R/o. Ward No.4 Rajapara, Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Radhey Shyam Tiwari, aged about70 years, Son of Late Ghurau Tiwari R/o. Near Math, Ward No.4, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Smt. Kaveri Bai, aged about 52 years, widow of Kartikeshwar, R/o. Near Vishnu Mandire, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITOR CERnORARI.ORDER/ORDERS.DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONSETC. si..._..__^__ •?• & ^ ^ / ^> MIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGNW AT BllASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte^Shn Jy^rce Prashant Kumar WKshra PETITIONER PLAtNTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Writ Petttionl 227) No.172e / 2009 Punam Singh Versus Ghasi Ram Yadav and others. ^^s Shri Vishnu Koshta,counsel forthe p^jtianer. ShriDashrath Prajapati.counsel for respondent No;1 . NoneTordherrespondents. \ WRrr PETmON UNDERMCTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTiONOF 1NDIA : :^ , ' : .- :.Y:;:!r.2SS^^ ORALORDER (10.03.2018) The teamed trial Court, by the impugned order, has stayed the suit preferred by the plairtiff in exereise of jxiwrer and tipwi fte a^lteation moved bythe respondent No.1 under Sectton 10 ofG.P.C. (2) The respondent No. 1 Ghasiram has preferred a suit bearing Cml Suit No. 177 M06 in the Sourt of Ch/ii Judge Class-li, .JanjgiF (Annexure P/4) seelung cteclaration of title and permanent injaneiion again^ the present pettioner- This suft was fited on or about 16-10-^)06. (3) The pre^nt pet'rtioner has preferred the instant Civil Sutt No. 9A/08 in the Court of Additfonal District Judge, Janjgir on or about 0'i-05-2(X%. On the date Tixed for framing of issues the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order staying the presenVsyteequent suit under Sectton 10 ofC.P.C. c (4) Adrrattedly the parties as wel! as the property in both the su'rts are one and the same. In the present / subsequent susf the Milii liili.i. ^^^^te& •^^&£—^.MS& Rl'1 *»£ peUioner/plaintiTf is claimit^ the relief for eviction, arrears of rent and damages and in the altemative for dwlaration of his titte. (5) On perusal of both the ptaint, it appears that the learned tnat Court has rightty exercisedthe power and jurisdfction under Section 1' of C.P.C. It is found that when examining the question of title of the respondent No.1 in the previously instituted ths suit by him, the trial Court wouU definftely be required to dwetve upon theissue asto which of the party has better titte to the su'rt premises aml thus the matter in issue in t»ththe suits are similar. (6) Counsel tor the petitioner ^ibm'rts that he has also prayed for a ctecree of evtetion, therefore the matter in issue in both the suits are not common. (7) Be that as ft may, to decree the petitioner's su'rt tor evfetion the Court wll be required to prima facie decide the question of titte and as such tte main issue about the title is in dispute in both the sutts. The petiticmer wouM be at liberty to continue his present suit after the decision in the previously inst'rtuted suft, if the t'rtle to the suit property i§ found his favour. Needless to say that, if the petitioner subm'rt coufiter claim in tlre previousty instituted suit, the same shall be deatt vAh in accordance with law. (8) WfththisobseirvatiQn.thewritpetitionisdismisseid. Sd/A Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge N