State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors vs Krishna Kumar Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 5767 Chatt

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet
                                      WP227 No. 142 of 2015
                State Of Chhattisgarh and others Versus Krishna Kumar Gupta



14/09/2022          Shri Lalit Jangde, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioners.

                    Shri Mateen Siddiqui with Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocates for the
             respondent.

Shri Ajay Chandra, Advocate on behalf of Shri Asseem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate for the intervener.

Heard on I.A.No.7, application for review/modification of the order dated 24- 02-2016 file by the intervener.

Vide order dated 24-02-2016 the application for intervention moved by M/s Madhoram & Sons through its partner Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Madhoram Gupta was rejected by this Court on the ground that the intervener claiming status of tenant and the issue involved in the petition is nothing to do with the tenancy rights of the intervener. Therefore, no intervener can be permitted in the instant petition. It was also observed that in case, any order has been passed which affects the intervener, it would be open for him to institute separate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

On 25-07-2022 the said intervener has again filed an application for review/modification of the order dated 24-02-2016 on the ground that in Civil Suit 82-A/2013 it is observed that the claimant is not a tenant. It is further pleaded that against the judgment passed, a Second Appeal No.211/2018 has been preferred before this Court and the same has been admitted on substantial question of law. In the last para of the application it is stated that the civil suit for eviction has been filed against the intervener and he has denied the tenancy, therefore, the order may be recalled.

It is a case of mutation and the order of the Board of Revenue has been challenged by the State before this Court by filing this petition. The intervener was not a party before the Board of Revenue and from pleading it does not appear that he is affected party or aggrieved party, therefore, the application moved by the intervener for review/modification of the order dated 24-02-2016 is rejected.

Shri Jangde prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply to I.A.No.9 application for dismissal of the writ petition being barred by principle of res judicata.

List this case in the week commencing from 07-11-2022. The interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Aadil