PETITIOBNR; Res. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION U/A 227 N0. 4223 OF 2010 Smt Sharda Soni W/o Shri Surendra Soni aged about 48 Years R/0 P.H.No. 14 (A) Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.). VBRSUS RBSPONDBNT: Plaintiff Raaiesh Kumar Agrawal, S/0 Shn Shatnihaa Lal Agravval, aged about 45 Years, R/0 P.H.No. 14 (A), TahsU Baloda Bazar, Distdct Raipur, (C,G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. (SB :Hon?ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shii Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner, Respondent notnoticed. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 06/08/2010) 1. Heard. 2. Order impugned dated 8/4/2009, passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspiir in revenue revision case No. R.N./14/R/A-70/360/2006, order dated 29/5/04 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Baloda Bazar ia Revenue case No. 06/A-70/2002-2003. order dated 26/4/2006 passed by Additional CoUector, Baloda Bazar District Raipur ia Appeal case No. 200/A/70 year 2004.05 Baloda Bazar, order dated 31/7/2006 passed by CivU Judge Class-2, Baloda Bazar ia civil Suit No. 60A/2006, oider dated 29/ 12/2006 passed by First Additional Distdct Judge, Baloda Bazar ia Misc. CivU Appeal No. 7/2006, order dated 2/9/2002 passed by Tahisildar, Baloda Bazar in Revenue case No. 06A/70/2001-2002 perased. 3. At fhe iastance of present petitioner proceediag under Section 250 offhe C.G, Laad Revenue Code ( ia short 'fhe Code3) was iaitiated ia which Additional CoUector, Baloda Bazar, Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Baloda Bazar by aUowuig appUcation passed fhe order f ^ ::^^'.^^ ^"..^•"K-^"%: f" ^w "^ ^ 1 I ^^ i M.,?J — ^ for remstatement of fhe Bhumi Swami i.e. petitioner aad has Bhuini Sawini of fhe laad which was affimied by fhie Additional CoUector but sanie was reversed by Board of Revenue duriag pendency of aforesaid revenue proceediag respondent has filed civil suit before fhe CivU Court and obtained teniporary itijunction quashed tri fhe appeal filed on behalfofthe present petitioner. Leamed counsel for tlie petitioner submits tliat during pendency of fhe civU suit Board of Revenue has passed tlie order which wUl adversely affected fhe nghts of fhe petitioner therefore it be quashed, Leamed counsel for the petitioner also submits fhat suit penduig before fhe civU Court is barred ia tenns of Section 250 of the Code. Adinittedly proceediag under Section 250 of tiie Code is a suinniery proceediag for reiastatenient of Bhumi Sawmi iUegaUy dispossessed on the basis of his previous possession but bofh tiie parties are contestmg the case before fhe CivU Court relatmg to their clami of possession on the basis of title aiid pnma facie has failed to estabUsh tiie prima facie case for graat of injunction relatmg to aforesaid laad, During pendency of civU suit specially relatmg to reUef of possession on fhe basis of tiUe aiiy proceediag or decision uuder Section 250 of fhe Code would only be subject to decision of civil Court fhterefore, I do not fiiid aay case for uiterference, specially duriiig pendency of dispute before fhe civU Court. ConsequenUy, fhis petition is dismissed witli aforesaid observation. Sd/- TR Sharma Judge /^>