1 2025:CGHC:5863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 768 of 2018  Vishwaroop Padhi S/o Abhay Kumar Padhi Aged About 38 Years R/o A- 502, Shrinand Nagar, 05, Vezalpur, Ahamdabad, Gujrat. Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Manoj Deo S/o Late P.C. Deo, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Rajbada, Sukma, Tahsil And Disrtict- Sukma, Chhattisgarh....... (Defendant No.3), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Rashmi Deo(Dead) W/o Bharat Bhushan R/o Sukma, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh, (In The Ipugned Order District- Mention As South Bastar Dantewada., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 1.1 - A. Bharatbhushan Shrivastava S/o Ladlisharan Shrivastava Aged About 59 Years R/o Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - B. Prateek Shrivastava S/o Bharatbhushan Shrivastava Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chindgarh, Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - C. Priyambada Shrivastava D/o Bharatbhushan Shrivstava Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chindgarh, Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Rajeshnandani Deo D/o Late Harsh Devo R/o Ranga Raj Bhawan, Main Road, Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh....... (Defendant No. 1a), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 3. Shri Sangram Singh Deo S/o Harsh Deo R/o Ranga Raj Bhawan, Main Road, Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.......(Defendant No. 1b), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Ragni Deo W/o Laxminarayan Deo Aged About 39 Years R/o Rajbada, Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.......(Defendant No.4), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Rajlaxmi Deo W/o Ashok Mal Aged About 48 Years R/o Rajbada, Sukma, Tahsil And Disrtict- Sukma, Chhattisgarh........(Defendant No.5), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 2 6. Smt. Vinodni Chandel W/o Chhindraj Chandel Aged About 55 Years R/o Pedmaras, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.....(Defendant No.7), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 7. Smt. Rajshri Deo W/o S. Chandrashekhar Raju Aged About 62 Years R/o Villge Chinnanirangi, Taluka- Parwatipuram, District- Vijayanagaram (A.P.) At Present R/o Rajbada Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents No. 4,5 & 7 : Mr. Gopal Prasad Mathur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31. 01.2025 1. Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate seeks short adjournment for the next week. The prayer made by Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate is rejected as on the instance of Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel and Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocates, record was called and the matter was fixed for today i.e. on 31.01.2025. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioners. case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P/1) and restore the suit no. 1A/2008 to its original file and number in the court of Civil Judge Class-I Sukma. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct and investigation in the instant case. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. The facts of the present case are that the original plaintiff, namely, Smt. Rashmi Deo filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Sukma, District Sukma, claiming that she is a daughter of Late Shyam Sundar Deo 3 and the other respondents including the petitioner herein, namely, Vishwaroop Padhi (who was defendant No. 3) are legal heirs of Late Shyam Sundar Deo. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the suit property along with other respondents and thus, she claimed 1/7th share in the property. The Civil Suit No. 1A/2008 filed by Late Smt. Rashmi Deo was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012. 4. The petitioner who was defendant No. 3 has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Sukma dated 30.11.2012 on the ground that the judgment was passed behind his back though he was a necessary party. It is also contended that the petitioner has a substantial right over the property. It is also stated in the petition that in the compromise decree, the petitioner was not a party; therefore, the compromise decree passed in the suit would not be binding on the petitioner. Thus, a prayer has been made to set-aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the learned trial Court, the compromise agreement was recorded in his absence and that document was never signed by the petitioner. She would further submit that the petitioner was one of the coparceners; therefore, the compromise entered into between other parties is not binding upon him. She would also submit that the learned trial Court ignored the fact that the petitioner was a necessary party to the agreement. Thus, she would pray to set-aside the judgment dated 30.11.2012. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 1A/2008 was challenged by the 4 petitioner by filing Civil Suit No. 2A/2019 on 11.08.2019. He would further submit that in Civil Suit No. 2A/2019, the petitioner had challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 1A/2008. He would also submit that this writ petition was filed on 13.08.2018, wherein the very judgment and decree has been challenged and again the same was challenged by filing a Civil Suit. It is contended that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact before the learned Civil Court that WP227 No. 768 of 2018 is pending consideration before the Hon’ble High Court against the same judgment. It is further contended that the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sukma, District Sukma vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2024. It is stated that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Gopal Prasad Mathur, counsel appearing for respondents No. 4, 5 & 7 would support the contention made by Mr. Goverdhan. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. In the present petition, the petitioner, who was defendant No. 3 in Civil Suit No. 1A/2008, has challenged the illegality and validity of the judgment dated 30.11.2012 on various grounds. This petition was filed on 13.08.2018 whereas during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 2A/2019 challenging therein the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012. In para 11 of the Civil Suit, the petitioner has pleaded as under:- “11. यह कि प्रतिवादी क्रमां 1 से 9 ने आपस में दुरभिसंति रे हुए समझौा पत्र प्रस्ु किया था वादी े साथ छल एवं पट रे हुए थाभिथ समझौा ति#क्री पारिर किया जि&समें वादी ए आवश्य एवं उति) पक्षार होे हुए ी उसे स्वत्व एवं अतिार ी अनदेखी रे हुए अवै ला अर्जि& रने े आशय से थाभिथ ति#क्री े आार पर अनुसू)ी 'अ' ी वाद ूकिम ा किवा&न र लिलया, &ो दाकिप किनष्पादन े योग्य नहीं होना माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा अवारिर किया गया है अः उक्त आदेश किदनां 30/11/2012 एवं आज्ञकि> किदनां 11/12/2012 प्रारं से ही अृ , शून्य एवं किनष्प्रावी होर वादी पर 5 बंनारी नहीं रह गई है था उक्त आदेश किदनां 30/11/2012, एवं आज्ञकि> किदनां 11/12/2012 किनष्प्रावी होर किनरस् घोकिC किए &ाने योग्य है।" 10. In relief clause No. 4, the plaintiff has sought relief as under:- “4. यह कि प्रतिवादी क्रमां 1 से 9 द्वारा छल, पट एवं किमथ्या आारों पर किवतिः किवपरी प्रा> आदेश एवं आज्ञकि> ो किनरस् किया &ावे ।" 11. The pleadings made in Civil Suit No. 2A/2019, relief sought therein, and the decree which is the subject matter of this petition was assailed and the Civil Suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2024. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that a writ petition is not maintainable against the judgment and decree and the petitioner was simultaneously challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 before this Court as well as before the learned Civil Court thus it appears that the petitioner deliberately concealed the pendency of the instant writ petition while pursuing the civil suit. This act amounts to the suppression of a material fact and an attempt to litigate the same issue before two different forums. 13. In view of the conduct of the petitioner in concealing material facts and pursuing parallel proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed subject to a cost of 25,000/- payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services ₹ Committee, Bilaspur. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant