1 2025:CGHC:2488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 151 of 2023 1 - Zoeb Husain S/o Late Zahid Husain Aged About 67 Years R/o Tatibandh, Ahmed Ji Bhai And Sons, Bharat Petroleum, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Zafar Husain S/o Zahid Husain, Aged About 65 Years R/o Tatibandh, Ahmed Ji Bhai And Sons, Bharat Petroleum, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Anjuman Islamiya Registered Waqf Organization Through Authorized Secretary, Anjuman Islamiya Committee, Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Khurshid Husain S/o Zahid Husain R/o Ratnabandha Chowk, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Since Dead) (Partner) 2.1 - (A) Hajma Begum Wd/o Late Khurshid Husain Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Ratnabandha Chowk Road, In Front Of Rest House, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Damtari Chhattisgarh. 2.2 - (B) Abdul Husain S/o Late Khurshid Husain Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Ratnabandha Chowk Road, In Front Of Rest House, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Damtari Chhattisgarh. 2.3 - (C) Yusuf Husain S/o Late Khurshid Husain Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Ratnabandha Chowk Road, In Front Of Rest House, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Damtari Chhattisgarh. 2.4 - (D) Fatima D/o Late Khurshid Husain Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Ratnabandha Chowk Road, In Front Of Rest House, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Damtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.15 17:38:00 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate, appearing through VC. For Respondent/State : Shri TS Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 15/01/2025 1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27th October, 2023 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Dhamtari whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/defendants under Section 11 read with Order 2 Rule 2 & read with Section 151 of the CPC stating that the suit is barred by law considering the principle of res judicata, was rejected and the objection raised by the petitioners was disallowed. 2. Facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has preferred a civil suit bearing Misc. Civil Suit No.21-A/2011 before the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Tribunal, Raipur on 15th July, 2008 by making an averment, inter alia, that the suit property viz. Plot No.6/3, Khasra No.209 is the Waqf property and sought vacant possession from defendant No.1. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has also challenged the orders passed by the SDO Dhamtari and other authorities to be declared as null and void and mesne profit. In the said civil suit, a finding has been arrived that the subject land is the Government grass land and lease has been granted in favour of the petitioners herein by the State and the plaintiff has not been 3 able to establish that defendant No.1 is the tenant of respondent No.1/plaintiff and the said suit was dismissed. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has challenged the said finding by way of Civil Revision before this Court which is still pending consideration. During the pendency of the said Revision, subsequent civil suit has been filed in the year 2005 seeking relief of permanent injunction, in which it has been further averred that the subject property was granted on lease by the State in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, and the petitioners herein have regularly paid rent to the plaintiff since 1999 for 2-3 years and thereafter no regular payment of the rent was made. The petitioners have also started raising illegal construction without any permission. Therefore, the said suit was filed for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein have raised the aforesaid objection which was rejected. Hence this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when between the same parties, a finding has been arrived at that the petitioners are not tenant of respondent No.1/plaintiff, by making similar nature of statement, directly and substantially, that too when the matters in both the suits and parties are same, the trial Court should not have disallowed the objection and the suit in the present form is not maintainable. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would support the impugned order. She would submit that if the matter is still pending consideration before the revisional Court, it cannot be said that the matter has attained finality. 4 5. Admittedly, only on the score that the revision petition has been filed and the same is pending consideration and the finding recorded by the Waqf Tribunal is under challenge, though the same has been held in favour of the petitioners herein that they are not the tenant of respondent No.1/plaintiff, it can safely be held that continuation of the subsequent suit by making averment that the petitioners herein are the tenant of respondent No.1/plaintiff is abuse of the process of the Court for which principle of res judicata squarely applies. If any finding has been arrived at between the parties in the revision, the same shall be binding on both the parties. 6. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not applied the provisions of Section 11 of the CPC in proper perspective and as such, the objection raised by the petitioners herein is allowed. The suit instituted by respondent No.1/plaintiff on such score is held to be not maintainable and the plaint is hereby rejected. However, respondent No.1/plaintiff would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief in earlier litigation, which is still pending, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve