1 2025:CGHC:30434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 603 of 2025 1. Chherkuram S/o Shri Shibo Aged About 65 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Ward No. 12, Chakarbhatha Camp Nagar Panchayt Bodri Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Samari Bai W/o Shibo Aged About 70 Years R/o Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Than Singh S/o Arjun Miri Aged About 43 Years R/o Pulgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. 4. Dhaniram S/o Nityanand Miri Aged About 29 Years R/o Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5. Meera Bai W/o Subhash Miri Aged About 25 Years Dauthter Of Nityanand R/o Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Maniram S/o Pardeshi Mochi Aged About 70 Years Occupation Are Cultivator, R/o Ward No. 12, Chakarbhatha Camp, Nagar Panchayat Bodri Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Tikaram S/o Pardeshi Mochi Aged About 60 Years Occupation Are Cultivator, R/o Ward No. 12, Chakarbhatha Camp, Nagar Panchayat Bodri Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Mahesh Kumar S/o Pardeshi Mochi Aged About 58 Years Occupation Are Cultivator, R/o Ward No. 12, Chakarbhatha Camp, Nagar Panchayat Bodri Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.07 17:55:02 +0530 2 04. 07.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balodabazar, in Civil Suit No. 43A/2024, whereby an application moved by the petitioners/defendants under Section 11 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No. 43 A/2024 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession based on will-deed dated 05.09.1991 executed by Dhaan Bai. He would further submit that earlier, Civil Suit No. 145 A/1988 was filed by Devi Dayal (dead) against the legal representatives of Dhaan Bai. He would further submit that in that Civil Suit, orders were passed on applications moved under Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 03.05.2010. He would also submit that the said suit was dismissed as the plaintiffs could not prove their claim. He would contend that as the earlier suit was decided between the same parties for the same suit property, therefore, the subsequent suit is not maintainable according to provisions of Section 11 of CPC. He would refer to the judgment passed in earlier Civil Suit No. 145 A/1988. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 5. Heard. 6. Perusal of the judgment dated 03.05.2010 would show that applications moved under Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC were decided by the learned trial Court and as the plaintiffs of that suit failed to prove their claim; therefore, the suit was dismissed. The judgment would further show that issues were not framed and the description of property was also not mentioned. 3 7. The petitioners herein have not placed relevant documents to infer that the earlier suit was filed between the same parties pertaining to the same suit property and issues decided in that suit are involved in the present suit, therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 8. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant