Writ Petition f227-l No. '5^ /SQtQ- \\ Petitioners: Plaintiffs Resoondents: Defendents If^ ,'9-1\fr/- .3, ^c^^. ^ ^.^^ Al%^.^'"" <r\y.^'^y !.</° .^ ^e"^y :^t^" --1. Smt. Pushpa Devi age 30, years w/o Shri Parmeshwar Kaushik r/o Talapara, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Prasuti Devi age 35 years w/o Shri Hemchandra Kaushik, r/o Villatje Dagauri, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. BilaspurC.G. VERSUS. ^l. Bhagwati Prasad age 42 years s/o Binda Prasad Kaushik ,'i. Horilal age 40 years s/o Binda Prasad Kaushik Budhram age 38 years s/o Binda Prasad Kaushik No. 1 to 3 r/o Village Chhatauna, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ^4. Smt. Savitri Bai age 36 years w/o Bharat lal Kaushik, r/o Village Rahangi, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. BilaspurC.G, Smt. Heerabaiage 34 years w/o Tribhuwan Sannad, r/o Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. BilaspurC.G. Hemchand age 32 years s/o Binda Prasad Kaushik, r/o Village Dagauri, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. BilaspurC.G. 7. Parmeshwar Kaushik age 30 years s/ o Binda Prasad Kc'ushik, r/o Talapara, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 8. State of C.G. through Collector • BilaspurC.G. y- ^- ^ WRIT PETJTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTIQN OF INMA, !»^^^® ii?^-^:®=^N@ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 526/2011 PETITIONERS Smt. Pushpa Devi and anr. Versus RESPONDENTS Bhagwati Prasad and ors. SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Kamal Pandey, Advocate, for fhe petitioners. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer, for the State. ORAL ORDER 4. (1-2-2011) 1. Heard on admission. -'<->. The instant petition is directed against the order dafed 27- 8-2010 (Ex. P-1) passed by the court below whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been disniissed. Facts of the case as projected by the petitioners in the petition are that the petitioners have preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for dismissal of fhe counter claim preferred by the defendants inter alia on the ground that earlier the defendants have preferred a suit which was dismissed in default, the said suit was not restored and therefore, instant counter claim preferred by them is barred by principles of res judicata under Section 11 ofthe C.P.C. and is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused fhe order impugned, I do not find any substance in fhe petition. The question whefher or not the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata has to be decided on its own merit after framing issues in this behalf and after recording evidence thereupori and the same cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. Therefore the trial court has rightly dismissed the application. .-•'^s '•'a "^'^?'' ^ l^'" It is well settled principle of law that this Court," in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. Therefore, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. __._ Sd//- - N^.Agra^ai Judge