1 2025:CGHC:7516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 585 of 2019 • Shyamlal Mallik S/o Late Santosh Mallik Aged About 52 Years R/o Durpa Road, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. Mamta Das D/o Late R. Das Aged About 39 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Indira Market, Sector - 6, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Mimansha Mallik D/o Shri Shyamal Mallik Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Mama Das, Aged About 39 Years, D/o Late C.R. Das, Caste - Panika, R/o Indira Market, Sector - 6, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Plaintiffs/Respondents For Petitioner : None, even in two rounds. For Respondents : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priya Mishra and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.A The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the Court below. 10.B The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 (ANNEXURE P/4) passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 71-A/2017, in the interest of justice. 10.C The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.C Cost of the petition.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. It appears that the respondents filed a suit for the declaration of their status and for ascertaining the paternity of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. The petitioner herein moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable according to the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The application was rejected by the learned Family Court vide order dated 25.06.2019. Against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the same petition between the same parties, an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was moved and the same was rejected by the learned Family Court vide order dated 15.12.2023. He would contend that the said order was challenged by filing WP227 No. 31/2024 and it was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024. He would contend that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed and thereafter, the review petition was also dismissed. He would also contend that in the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, similar grounds were raised and the application was rejected by the learned Family Court. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, earlier an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by the petitioner and the same was dismissed on 15.12.2023. WP227 No. 31/2024 was preferred against the said order and it was also dismissed on 08.04.2024. SLP and review petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3 6. The petitioner moved another application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC raising almost similar grounds and that has been rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 25.06.2019. The earlier application was rejected by the learned Family Court and similar application was moved by the petitioner under the guise of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC which has been rejected by the learned Family Court. Further, according to the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, the declaration as sought by the respondents is legally valid, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 7. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti