^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. t^ /2006 APPELLANT PlsLintiff ^^^- ^' 1. Smt. Biran Bai, aged about 60 , years, W/o Hirasingh By Ca.ste Haryan 2. Sukhchand, aged about 39 years, S/o Late Hira Singh, by Occupa tion Driver in Forest Department 3. Sukhdev aged about 25 years, S/o Hira Singh All R/o Village Narayanpur Post and To.hsil Narayanpur, Dist^ Bastar (C.G) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS Defendants Ram Pyare Dewangan, Aged about 78 yea.rs, S/o Late Cfaamraram By Caste Koshta, By OccupadQn. Retd. Distt. Excise Officer, R/o Village Narayanpur Distt. Bastar That State of Chhattisgarh through CoJJector Kanker APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (t| READ WITH SUB RULE (c^ OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCBDURE i- XI-HC-78 3TT^T^Tf^TW cT^TT3T[^T$h^iGh ^BN» *11^<11 «>+1ich 3^T ^l^l^l^, ^Tn.<-IJI(o, [sicni^^< __nCAc ^foi^J. ^ o. / o ^^ j ^TT^ 200 3TT^?T ^5|cb (^qi^q^) ^cTT^K ^f?cf 3TT^?T chl^[^l41r1 WT^Tf ^ fe^ <r3i<(-<l< ^3Tf^q-3TT^T 05-12-2006 Shri Parag Kotecha, leame^ counsel for the appellants. Heard on admission. This Miscellaneous Appe^il is directed against the order dated 04-09-2006 passed by the Firsjt Additional District Judge, Kanker in Misc. Civil Case No.(Unregistere)d) 0/06 whereby the application under Order-41 Rule-19 read with Ord^r-9 Rule-9 of C.P.C. was dismissed on cation had been dismissed vide order the ground that the similar appl| dated 25-11-2004. Brief facts are that the ap||>ellant/plaintiff had instituted a Civil Suit No.23-A/1994 which was disn|iissed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Narayanpur, District-Bastar on 121-02-1996. Against the said judgment and decree, a Civil Appeal No.9-A/19^6 was preferred on 21-03-1996 and this appeal was dismissed in default An application for restoration of tl filed under Order-41 Rule-19 res was also dismissed in default o1 |of the appellant/plaintiff on 12-01-2001. |iis appeal (Civil Appeal No.9-A/96) was ld with Order-9 Rule-9 of C.P.C. which the appellant/plaintiff. This application was dismissed vide order date|d 25-11-2004. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellant/plaintiff p| this Miscellaneous Appeal witll available under law. As a result, granting the aforesaid liberty to th^ another application under Order-^ C.P.C. before the First Additionall dismissed on the ground that th| eferred Misc. Appeal No.02/2005 in the High Court. On 22-02-2CX36, the p|aintiff/appellant prayed for withdrawal of liberty to take appropriate remedy ;his appeal was dismissed as withdrawn 5 plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff filed yet »1 Rule-19 read with Order-9 Rule-9 of IDistrict Judge, Kanker which was again ^ order passed on 25-11-2004 upon a r~~ XI-HC-78 HWW\ Sh*1ich 3^T ^i^icn^, ^Tfl^Ji<o, fstcni^^< • ^i<^.. 4&^<^ ^c1' /&•*^^ 200^ 3TT^5T^Rr^ (^ciI^^T) 3TI^FT^T^i<=h c^TT3T[^T$b^ich ^^•^: \^ ^TT^K ^cT 3T[^T ^- ^ similar application had become <=t)i^?<n^ri TTFToff ^f te^t <RI<(-<-!< ^3ff^T3T[^T |final. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellanVplaintiff has preferred thfs Miscellaneous Appeal. In view of the withdrawal |of the Misc. Appeal No.02/2005 by the plaintiff/appellant, order dated 251-11-2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Kanker has becorfie final. A similar application filed under Order-41 Rule-19 read with Ordejr-9 Rule-9 of C.P.C. would therefore not lie before the same Court. In thi^ view of the matter, the dismissal of the subsequent application dated 241-08-2006 passed by the First Additional ^- District Judge, Kanker vide impu faulted with. In this view of the matt|er, this Miscellaneous Appeal has no substance and is dismissed at the In view of above, the app of temporary injunction also stand|s disposed of. gned order dated 04-09-2006 cannot be stageofadmission. ication (M.(C)P.No.2137/2006) for grant Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O. ^