G—78 TST '<iww<i, &^wi6, hv\wy. *11*<CtT «»*1|en 3TI^?T'CR^' (' p) sn^r ^i R-<i+ ngH 5fflt?T 3)4i<^i ?^IIW: •dfWT 311^1 SIN6LE BBMCH: HON w, [Petrtion WA 227 PETmONER Vs RESPONDENTS 09.04. tor. Utt'am Pandey, Adv ^i^^i 's^F^ff ^f f^(<n <r<it^i< ^'sifinai^si iLE JUSTICE DHIRB'lbRA MISHRA No,2433/05 of the Constitution of Indial State) of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhalftisgarh) Through: The Collector, t)ur9,|E)istrict burg, (C.6.) 1. Pr^ideep Jain, S/o Late Shri Panchamlal Jc|in, Aged about 40 years, R/o M.P. H4using Board Colony, Titurdih, House N4.109, Durg, P.5. Moh'an Nagar, Durg A^ present residing at House No.162/1, M^ithilipara, &ur9, District tiurg (CG) ....Plaintiff 2. M|t). Tiwari, Town Inspector Police, Office of Additional S.P., Ourg (Sramin) at^present posted asSDOP, Patan, Dist. ^9 (C6). ....Defendant No.l 3. R.|(. Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector, P^lice, P.S. Superal, DisTrict Gurg (C.6.) ....befendant No.2 4. Rf. Shorma, City Superintendent of P41ice, P.S.Chhawani, District Durg (C©) ....Defendant No.3 Mr. Satish Supta, Sovejwment Advocate for the petitioner. cate for respondent No.l. None for respondent NJ3.2. ^. liiiiir .^ l-HG—78 3:^!^7 ^I Ki-ll* ?fsTf 3n^T sti*11^ 'TST '^W\<t^, y'fll'y'ltc, fqdWJ,< HWVll SbHT^ sf^i Tra^? ('ici'd'<'i?) ^RnW^fCTan^I mpu^ned Mr. Jitendra K Supta, Heard. The petitioner by tl^ Constitution of India has ii leamed 21ri Additional Distrl whereby learned 2 Aclditioni the ptaintiff/respondent No.l finding that annual income of| he is entitled for exemption f| The petitioner-State that the State/defendont P-2) mentioning therein that from the court fee in and his application for exempjt the court' considers it neces|a only-after due enquiry. Annexure P-2, the trial courf exemption from payment 41 Notification No.F.9.83-b XX3| filed an objection of considered and relying upon t{i A^lvocate for the respondent No.3. Has Nd.4 accordcfrice Annexlure i^OTferah tjnaf-^"-fsist •rfSr^re ^aiRnsiitm |is petition under Article 227 of the the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by l|ct Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.2-A/00 |il District Judge has granted exemption to herein from payment of court fee with a |the plaintiff is Rs.6,000/- and therefore, 'om poyment of court- fee. preferred this petitionon the ground in the suit filed an objection (Annexure ^•he plaintiff is not entitled for exemption with Section 35 of the Court Fees Act jtion should be rejected and in ony case if [sary, then exemption should be accorded \ without deciding the application of has allowed the application by extending f court fees under the provisions of dated 1.4.1983. Even defendcuit No.l had P-4 but that objection was also not ie certificate of Naib Tehsildar, Durg that Howlever .^y''^. ,^'r""".'i "% r -^,--. "• .<:i?' XI-HG—78 CT^T W K'S'fi 'S2n STI^T sft+iicfi ^ST -41'lfl<rlAI, ®tll<-l<l<o,fsftlK-l^ HWW »a*irai sn^iwv ('yf^^i) TOIIW ^to 3TI^[ income of the plaintiff was puyment of court fee has been On the other hond, tearr subnnitted that the above ordei dueenquiry and after recordin< certificate of Naib Tehsildar the petitioner-State djd nol objection of Annexure P-2 and to show that the plaintiff had relevant time, the benefit of 4 been allowed to the plaintiff. I have heard learned From perusat of the i^ objection filed by the petition( court below after considering exemption to respondent No.| the plaintiff, who has also filei? to him by the Naib Tehsilda^ Tehsildar has mentioned +hat| income from alt sources is Rsj( less than Rs.6,000/- exemption from ttllowed. ted counsel for respondent No.l/plaintiff has been passed by the triat court after evidence of the plaintiff on the basis of ^egarding income of •the plaintiff. Since lead any evidence in support of the Ithere was no evidence available on record |+ie income of more than Rs.6,000/- at the ^xemption from poyment of court fee has issued for the purpose of lega| ^iqfe)'^ •wrcff^'-fe^ tRre^n: ^sifmsn^a coilnset i(n for the pdrt-ies. ipugned order it is observed that the ir-5-tate was registered as I.A. No.2, the the objection of the State, has allowed l/plaintiff after recording statement of income certificate (Annexure P-5) issued regarding his income wherein the Naib the petitioner is labourer and his annual i.OOO/-. The above certificate has been aid. 'w ' % s ••^_.rJ"'' /K-^? lri,,.<-E' xi-HG—78 STT^T qn R(-t ^TT 5?n^T^^14> Roshcin/- ^sr ^wwi, ®-(ilyis,f®icii«y,< HWWl »»*(I^ SD^T TRq; (iyt^<iiEl) TCtiw^f^sn^i Defendants have not ac before the trial court to estat)lish No.l/plaintiff is possessed of exemption from the payment| statement of plaintiff and th< been held that the plaintiff ii court' fee as his income is tess frhan After going through th( there is no illegality, infirmity| court' below warronting inter^ Article 227 of the Constitutiol In the result, the petiti to be dismissed and accordingl Consequently, interim ^F'ricrih •wiaf <i •fs'st ^affiTirsntH |duced any oral or_documentary evidence their objections that the re^iondent kifficient means and he is not entitled for |of court fee and thus relying upon the certificate of the Naib Tehsitdar it has entitted for exemption from pcyment of 1 Rs.6,000/-. impugned order I am of the opinion that or jurisdictional error committ-ed by the :erence in exercjse of jurisdiction under of India. >n being devoid df any substance deserves ', it is hereby dismissed. dated 20.6.2005 also stands vacated. orfder Sd/- ,., Dbteendra^a --^Judge