Ashutosh vs Durgeshwar @ Durga
2022 Latest Caselaw 1583 Chatt

                                                                    NAFR



          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            C.R. No.25 of 2022


1.

Ashutosh, S/o Santosh, Aged About 33 Years, Caste Brahmin, R/o Main Road , Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Abhishek, S/o Santosh, Aged About 30 Years, Caste Brahmin, R/o Main Road , Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Asha Tiwari, W/o Santosh, Aged About 55 Years, Caste Brahmin, R/o Main Road , Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Satish Kumar Tiwari, S/o Hulasram, Aged About 47 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Kosla, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh.

5. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Hulasram, Aged About 45 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Kosla, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh.

6. Sudhir Kumar, S/o Hulasram, Aged About 43 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Kosla, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh.

7. Shraddha Shukla, W/o Jaiprakash Shukla, Aged About 58 Years, R/o New Chandaniya Para, Main Road, Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

8. Smt. Sarita Pandey, W/o Byas Narayan Pandey Aged About 56 Years R/o Janakpur Road, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

9. Anita Pathak, W/o Vinod Pathak Aged About 52 Years R/o Barela, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Defendants No. 1 to 9).

---- Applicants

Versus

1. Durgeshwar @ Durga, S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Kosla , Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff).

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.10).

---- Non-Applicants

_____________________________________________________________

For Applicants : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State : Smt. Usha Chandrakar, P.L.

For Non-Applicants No.1 on caveat : Shri Ravindra Sharma,

Advocate.

_____________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order On Board

25/03/2022

1. Heard on admission.

2. This revision has been preferred by the Applicants/defendants

against the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the 1 st Additional

District Judge, Janjgir, (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.19-A/18, whereby the

learned Additional District Judge rejected the application

submitted under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (in short 'the CPC').

3. The Applicants/defendants have filed the aforesaid application only on the ground that previous Civil Suit No.31-A/2017 was

pending between the parties and the same has been disposed of

vide judgment dated 04.10.2021. Therefore, the present case is

liable to be rejected on the ground of res judicata. Relying upon

the judgment of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal

Kamat and Others (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 99, learned

Additional District Judge dismissed the application submitted

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

4. At the time of argument, learned Counsel for the

Applicants/defendants fairly admitted the fact that in the light of

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal (supra), the

learned Additional District Judge has rightly rejected the

application submitted under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

5. Looking to the above submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision.

6. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed at its motion stage itself

as there is no merit in it.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash