ISiGIJ' ^^ <%:-- ' ^'>-'" ^" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. AT BSLASPUR (C.G.l Civil Revision 3Nfo<: - "M / 2006. APPLICANT ; - (Defeaadant) ^ Majloom Husain, Age-56 Yrs. S/Qltf^ssaini Bhai, R/0 -Khaparganj, Bilaspur, District:- BUaspur, (C.G.) LVJBRSUS: RESPONDENT: - ^p(^^ Chaturbhuj MuayaaAa, Age-64Yrs. S/0 Late Mahvir Prasad Murrarka, R/0: - Gayatri Maiadir Road, Vinoba Nagar,Bilaspur District: - Bilaspur, (C.G.) -: MEMO OF REVISION UWDER SECTI02T 23 (El QFC.G^CCOMMQDATION CONTROL ACT ;- " XI-HC-22 371^1^1 T^Jch ^TT^T 5b^i<^ ^Tf^a Y ' 1-. ~5^ ^Nid^, <^Tl1<<n<o» 'N^iray WH^rrww^s . C.C.^.(.....&.^;..7i. '^ 200(3 ^n^T^HW^^ 21.6.2006. . -- . ; • Shri Ajad Siddiqui, counsel Shri K.A, Ailsad, Sr. 'Advo<j cbunselfor fhe respondexit Heard 011 admission, This is a revision filed ii/s Coiitrol Act agaiiist the order da^ ControUiug Authority, Bilasp A/90(6)/2003-04 whereby aii tenaiit for stay of fhe proceediui dismissed. L^anied counsel for the regarcltiig ownership of.fhe vSmtKadeera Bi & aiiottier and respondent, m which it has to bej tiie tenajited premises aud unlej| premises is determmed, 'the pro4; Act would uot be maiiitaio.ayi Authority (for short "R.C.A"). H^ proceedtags ixi siBiultaiieous reason aji appUcatioii for stay R,C,A, was filed, which was couiisel argues that under fhe of Civil Proceclurc, fhe subseqzi| sliould have been stayed. for the applicaiit ;afe assisted by Shri A.P. Diibey, |23(E) offhe C.G. Accommodation ;d 21.3.2006 passedby the Rent jar iri pendiiig case No.5- a^plication filed by the'applicaiit/ fcs of ,the. aforesaid case has'been tenaijited ^N^pft^ ^i^<yiT ^ f^^t 'tf^r^R ^3?f^m^rf^T aj)plicao.t siibmits that a civil suit premises is pexiding befc^een ^haturbhnj Murarka, the present decided as to who is tlie owner of |s the ownership of the tenaiited leediag u/s 23(A) of the aforesaicl le before flie Rent ControUuig a furtlier submits that both the Eujiner caiiuot be drawu and for this >f further proceedmgs before the d|smissed by the R.C.A. LcaiTied ^visions ofSection 10 ofthe Code snt proceediag before the R,C.A. mai]inei XI-HC-22 ^3TT^T'^T f^'ii^ ^n^T ^RNT^Rf^T ~3~5E[ l^sa^!d.^, ^ftw^, tN^ray WH^Ii'WW^ .L^.^1. "W, 200^ •fe^s?' ^TT^I ^?Tre:R-^TT ^ ^^ relief clNmed coiltuiued featilres Section 10 oftheC.P.C. with the trial of aiiy suit ia ^ direcfly aad substaiitiaUy io. is^ bete^eeii fhe saoie parties, or or any of theni claioi litigatiiig suit is peiidio.g ia the same orj jurisdictioii to graat fhe Itmits of India estabUslied or aiid having Kke juriscliction, or b( One of fhe essential proceedio.gs before the tivo cou| fhe piDceediiigs are suits, the stayed. <? In fhe present case, R. C.A. is not a suit, thereforel purview of section 10 of C,P.C. has righ^ refiised to stay tiie There is no Ulegality iii fh^ uot uicUned to uiterfere with tttt Bierite aiid the same is niamtaiiiability of the proceecliiil peiideucy of suit before fhe c^i befeveeu the iwo parties Le., Smt Kadeera Bi& aaotlier shall -R.C.A. aiid necess^aiy brclers is^ue bett/veen sh^l ^TRfe^N 'RT^ff ^ fezt TT^?Tr '^3Tf^m3T[^r p^ovides that no court shall proceed ^jhich the matfer ui isszie is also ui a previously instittited suit the parfies under whom they lunder the saaie title where sucli any other court io. India haviag [, or iii aay. Court beyond tlle by the Central Govemnieiit s.fore fhe Siipreme Court. ofsection 10 CPC is that flie tl©must be the suits aoid unless ^ubseqiient prdcee.diag cminot be aclii^ittedly fhe proceedmg before the it caanot be stayecl within the ^iid the Rent Controlliiig Authority fi^rfher proceediiigs. order passedby fhe R,G.A, I am saicl orden The revision has 110 disnl.issed. However, tiie questioii of -ecliii^s before tlie R,C,A, on accozint of divil court for declaration of title be^ween the preseut respondent aiid be considered and clecided by tlie be passed 011 this point also. h .''• • '—'•:;• ns ^ XI-HC-22 sn^T-^T 'f^Ti^^^r ^RW^T? ^t( ^ss ^tNld'4, ^Ti1y4l(». ^Kni'My W^T'^'^i^'***"*'** <"" 0<< '^ 200 ^ 'STT^T'^fTWHlt^ ^-.^Z^- couiifeel At fhis stage, leanied tlie fiiial orders before the R.C.z^. June 2006, tlierefore; flie certifie4 Tlie.prayer is aUowed.. Gerti&ed Copy ofthis orderj|be given today itself ^'!^ta"4h HS^<yff "^ f^t Ti^?R ^ 3?f^fq 3TT^T for fhe appUcaut submits that are gouig to be passed on 22nd of copy oftlieox'derbe giveu today. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge [Tft^^fe^