1 2025:CGHC:4601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 88 of 2025  Kanhaiya Das Assistant Manager, Shri Sitaram Bank, Chella Of Late Shri Nritya Gopal Das (The Petitioner Herein Is Sanyasi, Who Was Under Care Of Late Shri Nritya Gopal Das, Who Was His Spiritual Guru, Therefore, In Adhaar Card Mentioned As S/o Shri Nritya Gopal Das And As Per It Affidavit Has Been Taken) Aged About 47 Years R/o Ayodhya Shri Maniram Das Chhawni, Shri Ayodhya Ji Seva Trust, Shri Ayidhya Ji, District Faijabad, Uttar Pradesh, Sarvarakar Of Naya Hanuman Mandir Tapsi Baba, Dongaghat, Champa,, Tapsi Baba Samiti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Civil Suit A Class No. 18/2024 As Follows- Shri Kanhaiya Das Ji, Assistant Manager, Shri Shriramnam Bank, Manidas Chhawni, Ayodhya, District Ayodhya (Faizabad), Uttar Pradesh. (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shri Hanuman Ji Murti Avam Math Mandir Dev Sthan, Champa Through Shri Narayan Das, Aged About 30 Years, Priest And Manager (Shivait), Hanuman Dev Mandir, Dongaghat, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 6267026390. (Plaintiffs) 2. Bajrang Lal Didvaniya S/o Shri Govind Prasad Aged About 71 Years R/o Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 9425223171 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Nominated Under The Registrar Of Chhattisgarh Lok Nyas Adhiniyam. (Defendant No. 2) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27. 01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the entire proceeding of Civil Suit No. 18A/2024, pending before Principal District Judge, Janjgir Champa. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the provisions of Section 92 of CPC, the suit is not maintainable before the learned Court below. He would further submit that the learned trial Court allowed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC moved by the plaintiff contrary to facts and provisions of law. 3. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Wankhede, the petitioner may move an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the learned Court below for rejection of plaint and as there is remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition for rejection of plaint. 4. From a perusal of the order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, it appears that it is appealable according to the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC; therefore, also the instant petition is not maintainable. 5. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the petitioner would be at liberty to move application for rejection of plaint before the learned Court below, and at the same time, he would be at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order of rejection of application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. 3 7. Certified copy be returned after retaining its xerox copy. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant