1 2025:CGHC:38980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4180 of 2025 1 - Smt. Seema Bhalla W/o Dr. Anup Bhalla Aged About 52 Years R/o Devsthali, Anmol Van Vihar, Gram- Nakti, Airport Road P.T.S. Mana, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dr. Anup Bhalla S/o Late J.D. Bhalla Aged About 67 Years Permanent Address - Devsthali, Anmol Van Vihar, Gram - Nakti, Airport Road, P.T.S. Mana, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Other Address - Khata No. 02417, Khasra No. 1053, Mauja - Nagpura, Paravadu, District- Dehradun (Uttrakhand). 2 - Collector District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) District- Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla Advocate For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed following relief(s):- “(10.1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by SDO, Raipur (C.G.) in Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.11 11:17:58 +0530 2 case No. 202505111000217/B-121/2024-25. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is challenging the legality, validity, correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 whereby the Court of Collector Raipur has dismissed filed by the petitioner herein on the ground of maintainability and the order dated 07.07.2025 whereby the Court of Sub Divisional Officer Raipur C.G. has rejected the application filed by the petition for rejection of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, in a very discriminatory and mechanical manner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court has failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner (wife of the respondent No1) is legally entitled to reside in the house and she cannot be evicted from the said conjugal house. Further the petitioner has filed case number MJC 256/2023 against the respondent No 1 under Section 12 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class-Raipur, seeking relief to be restrained/prohibited from forcefully evicting the petitioner from the house Devasthali, Anmol Van Vihar Village Nakati, Raipur (CG), which is known to the respondent no.01. Further, the MJC 256/2023 filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.01 before the Hon'ble JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) is still pending before the competent court for due consideration with regard to the same subject matter thus, the SDO Raipur (C.G.), does not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint filed by the respondent no.01 under Section 5 & 32 of Act 2007. 3 Moreover, the respondent no.01 has not approached Tribunal with clean hands as no pleading has been made by the respondent no.01 in respect of the aforesaid pending cases before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) & JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) which amounts to malicious concealment of material facts. Therefore he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 and 07.07.2025. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents raised objection on the ground of the maintainability of the case without considering the merits of case. The petitioner had made an application disputing the maintainability of the application filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal and on 07.07.2025 the concerned Tribunal has rejected the application of maintainability and proceeded further with the evidence. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner are trying to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner should have to file petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because the order under Challenge is not a final order and the impugned order does not effect the right of the petitioner in any manner. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) dated 07.07.2025 is an interlocutory order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 is an interlocutory order and the SDO Raipur has not passed any order against the petitioner and the order of the Tribunal 4 does not effect rights of the parties therefore the Collector has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that since the final order has not been passed, the appeal against the interim order is not maintainable. Moreover, this Court is of the view that there is no ground made by the petitioner to entertain this petition and the relief sought by the petitioner can not be decided/granted while exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 7. Reluctance of this Court in entertaining of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from availing other remedies open to him under law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge