^: HIGJ^_COURJ_OF_JUDJCATURE.CHHATTJSHJQARH :BjLASPUR Bench : Hon'fole Shri S.R. NAYAK, Writ N0. Vijay Kymar Agrawai, Slo. Shyam Chandra Aged about 39 years, RJo. Vlllage Chandrapyr, Dist Bilaspur, (MP). Versus 1« Svb Divisionaj Officer Saktj DJstrict Bilaspur (IVIP). 2. Tahsiiriar, Dabhra, District BIIaspur (MP). 3. Ram, S/o. Sihasan, RJo. Viilage Chandrapur, Dlstrlct Biiaspur (MP). 4. Gurbari Bai, D/o. Bachhu Ram, R/o. Viilage Chandrapur, DIstrict Bilaspur {MP}. : Mr«BD. Guru, iearned counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Chandel, iearned counsel for respondents 3 & 4. (Passedon6sn December, 2005) The iitigations bet^veen the partles are . in sever^l souhds and volurninous. There is no need to refer to aii those previous iitigations between the partjes. Suffice Jt to state that the petitioner herein questlons the status of the fourth respona'ent. On an earlier occasion v^hen the issued in fevour cf the fburth respondent by Nalb .^ -2L- Tahsildar assailed, thls Court having opined that the Tahsiidar is not competent authority to issue the certjfjcate.permitted the petitloner to a representation to the Sub Divlsional Officer and accordingly the petitloner made an appiicatlon before the Sub Dlvisional Officer, Sakti. The Sub D'ivisionai Officer by his ordsr dated 19/04/1997 rejected the • appllcation. When that order was again calied in question In W.P. No.1776 of 1997 before the High Court, the Court refused to the wrlt petltion by obsetving that the petitioner couid v/ork out his legai remedies by way of a sult before the jurisdictional Clvii Court. At the time of hearing, Mr. Guru, learned counsei for the petitioner would that as permitted by the Court the petjtlonerinstituted the suit In the Court of Civll Judge, Ciass-I!, and that suit was disnfiissed by a judgrnent and decree 24/10/1997. Belng aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petltioner preferred an appeai, Civi! Appeai No.39«Aof 1997 to the Court of Addltional District Judge, Sakti and the same was also dlsrnissed by the judgment and 15/10/1998, aagrieved by the said judgment and decree of the first appeiiate Court, this writ petjtion is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constltution of fndia. i am at a to how this writ Is under Artici.es 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petltioner is by the judgment and by the Judge in Civil Appeai No.39-A of 1997, he ought to have worked out his further before this Court by way of second appeal. The wrlt petition is, therefore, disrnissed as not maintainable. There shai! be no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice ©^)l^