C—78 aii^rw R-fi'b cfsn STi^T sft^i^i ^eq- rf<i<ii<s<<, (SiTfly'Ko, Riwi^y ..^.:.&.C.s3.... .'....^.l:2:^ •qiwrr g,,^--^-1-^^--"-'"-'--^----/-^ 200^- an^yr ^ia^ (13?f^<w) •reiiWHfefsn^T PETiTIONERS: DEFENDANTS 1. 2. RESPONDENTS: PLAINTSFFS -Versus- 1. 2. DEFENDANT 3. (Writ Petition under Articl Sjnale Bench: Hon' l-1-2( Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, coui|isel for the petitioners. Heard. The petitioners, who are preferred this writ petition question)] ^iPifepfrt^Praf^f.ft1^ <fat<l< ^? siRn sii^r Sukhram, son of Murha Bhatra, aged about 80 yeare, Laxman, son of Murha Bhatra, aged about 75 years, Both residents of Neganar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, DisSrict Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Dhanurjai, son of !ate Ghasiram Bhatra, aged about 50 years Must. Sukaldei, widow of Ghasiram Bhatra, aged about 66 years, Both residents of Dongriguda, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh, through Coilector, Bastar, District Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) l^ 227 ofthe Constitution of India) ble Mr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo defendants before the trial Court, have ng the legality and correctness ofthe order t -H<—78 3SET rt|l<<lci<<, 8iTi1«'l<S, Rlodiyy *11*1ril *1<1* •^ 200 an^?r ^RK (.'i»Syvs) SV^V ?il Ri-iro cf<TT 3TT^?T ^RTO^ 'gSITWHf?^ 31lt?T <hii(<'i<il-i ^ngf fl.lyA <R|*(K '^aiRnaii^r Kt dated 20th August, 2007 passed whereby tearned Civil Judge petitioners herein under Section The petitioners herein file^ measuring 11.50 acres of vill respondent No.2 herein for decl; Civil Judge vide judgment dated preferred an appeal, same was <f S.A. No.367/98 is pending beforej and 2 herein filed a civii suit in Civil Judge C!ass 2 for declarationj Perusal ofthe plaintfiled b^ subject matter of the present sui)| which was in the eariier suit fiied respondents herein in para-12 h^ herein have foreefully Saken ill Admittedly, this issue was not th< between the parties. Section shal! pmceed with the frial of directly and substantially in issue\ same parties'. Since this part ofl possession on account of the fact| was not issue in the earlier suit, as| attracted. The trial CourS has petitioners herein, as such, 1 do| impugned order. artation. 2&-3- |by the 2nd Civi! Judge, Ciass-2, Jagdalpur rejected the application filed by the loftheC.P.C. a suit in respect of agricutturat iand ad Dongriguda, Tehsii Jagdalpur against The said suit was dismissed by the 2P-3-96, against which the petitioners herein (ismissed vide order dated 31-1-98. Now, this Court. Thereafter, respondents No.1 r^spect of the same land in the Court of 2 possession and mesne profit. respondents No.1 and 2 herein shows that is not directly and substantially the same fc^ the petitioners herein. In the present suit, categorically stated that the petitioners possession of the land on 15-6-2002. i^ subject matter in the eariier suit pending |of the C.P.C. contemplates that 'No Court suit in which the matter in issue is also in a ptBviously instituted sw't befween the the present suit that they are seeking for |that they were dispossessed on 15-6-2002 |such, provisions of Section 10 CPC are not dismissed the application filed by the not find any illegality or infirmity in the h^ve edal arty ri^htly ---S&'''"^,JSt '"'"^'-. ^^ '\. fi.._-l 1 s;^ g - SI 1^-J 3^? '^l^l^, aTfl'M'ic, isi<"»i*fy fWvW *t<l* -^ 200 an^r 'vsm c^y^y) sn^ssjes K.-u* WK 3fn^?T sh+11<0 b Barve TCiiWHft^sn^T The writ petition is, therefc dismissed at the admission stagel Consequently, I.A. No.1sts|nds •tillld^-f 'RPTCTf tf.fezt <f"1«;l< '^aiRmsii^r ore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby itself. disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ~s~~