1 2025:CGHC:278-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 877 of 2024 M/s Gupta and Company Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Gupta S/o B. D. Gupta, aged about 43 years R/o Main Road, New Market, Dalli Ra- jhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh 491227 --- Appellant(s) versus M/s Dheeraj Traders Through Its Proprietor Dheeraj Shukla, R/o 15-A, Street NPA, Sector-9, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001 --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Appellant in person _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03 .0 1 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, appellant in person and perused the impugned order. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 02.12.2024 (M/s Gupta and Company vs. M/s Dheeraj Traders) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ARBA No. 79 of 2021, whereby, the said ARBA was directed to be listed for final hearing ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.04 10:34:21 +0530 2 after four weeks with a direction that I.A. No. 02 under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 of Civil Procedure Code shall be considered at the time of final hearing. 3. The Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short, the Act of 2006) provide for an appeal from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction, to a Division Bench of the same High Court. Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006, reads as under : “2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction. (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court : Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 4. There is no Rules / Act which may provide that an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench can be considered / looked into by any another Co-ordinate Bench. 5. When a pointed query was made to the appellant appearing in person about the maintainability of the present appeal, he could not give any plausible explanation. 3 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra