1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 341 of 2024 1 - Shyam Sundar S/o Late Chandrabhanu Aged About 49 Years R/o Vill. Midmida Tahsil Pusour, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ghasiram S/o Late Madhusudan Aged About 68 Years R/o Vill. Midmida, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Goverdhan S/o Late Madhusudan Aged About 62 Years R/o Vill. Midmida, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Biharilal S/o Late Madhusudan Aged About 58 Years R/o Vill. Midmida, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tarini S/o Late Bhakto Aged About 58 Years R/o Vill. Midmida, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Theena S/o Late Bhakto Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill. Midmida, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Bodhiram S/o Late Upendro Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Amlidih, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through By The District President Raigarh, Tahsil- Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.08.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the impugned Order Passed by Learned 3rd Civil Judge Class- 2, Raigarh dated 23.02.2024 in MJC of the Civil Suit A/ Case No. 82/2022 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier a suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction and partition pertaining to survey numbers mentioned herein below, situated at Village Midmida, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh:- अनुसूची क यादीगण एवं प्रतिवंदी का० 1 से 4 का नाम से ग्राम तिगडतिगड, प०८०१० 22. रा०तिना०म० वं ह० पसेरा, जिला रायागड (७०१०) दी भू"मिम का तिवंवंराण तिनाम्नानासेरा ह%- खसूरा नु० राकबा खसूरा नु० राकबा 6/1 0.729 ह० 9 0.789 ह० 29 0.121 ह० 37/1 0.550 ह० 198 0.360 ह० 292 0.049 ह० 294 0.057 ह० 305 0.364 ह० 368 0.332 ह० 386/1 0.162 ह० 511 0.109 ह० योग – 11 3.622 हे० अनुसूची अ वंदीगण का तिहस्से एवं काब् का( ग्राम मिमडमिमड, प०ह०ना० 22, रा०तिना०से ० वं ह० पसेरा, जिला रायागढ (छ०ग०) स्थि, भू"मिम का तिवंवंराण तिनाम्नानासेरा ह- :- 3 खसूरा नु० राकबा खसूरा नु० राकबा 6/1 0.426 ह० 9 0.239 ह० 29 0.121 ह० 37/1 0.121 ह० 198 0.360 ह० 368 0.080 292 0.049 ह० योग – 7 1.396 हे० अनुसूची बा प्रतिवंदी का० 2 वं 3 का तिप राथ० भूक्0 द्वारा यादीगण का तिप स्वं० मधुसे"दीना का पसे तिवंकाया का( गई भू"मिम का तिवंवंराण तिनाम्नानासेरा ह% - खसूरा नु० राकबा 6/1 से 0.25 तिडसे० (0.101 ह%०) 9 से 0.50 तिडसे० (0.202 ह०) 368 से 0.20 तिडसे० (0.081 ह०) योग 3 0.95 डिसू० 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a civil suit filed by the petitioner bearing Civil Suit No.125A/ 2013 was dismissed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 29.2.2016. He would contend that respondents No.1 to 3 have filed a fresh suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction pertaining to the survey numbers mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the issues raised in the subsequent suit have already been adjudicated in the earlier suit, and therefore, the subsequent suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. He would also contend that an application under Section 11 of CPC was filed, which has been rejected by the 4 learned trial Court. Accordingly, he would pray that this petition be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Earlier, a suit was filed by the petitioner claiming therein partition and permanent injunction, and in that suit, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A? (2) Whether Madhusudhan was adopted by the wife of Ramesh, namely Mali, as stated in Schedule-B? (3) Whether the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff? These issues were decided against the petitioner, and the suit was dismissed. 7. Respondents No.1 to 3, who were defendants in Civil Suit No.125A of 2003, have filed a fresh suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction pertaining to survey numbers mentioned above, on the ground that the property detailed in Schedule-A is their ancestral property, acquired through partition, whereas the property mentioned in Schedule-B was purchased by the father of the plaintiff. 8. On perusal of the issues framed in Civil Suit No.125A of 2013 and those involved in the present case, it can safely be held that although the parties are the same and part of the property is the same but the 5 issues involved are entirely different. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11 of CPC would not attract. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi