j -LLEB y^, --.--——.^^^^.^ ^^^^. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^plicant ^ Q^fendant f-*-^ t^ l.«*:*'' CIVIL REVISION N0-A. OF 2009 !o^...-< ^ !-...-^^^f ^^5?--| ••••'" RESPONDENTS , :1 pia^tiff 'y^- ^' Mohammed Aslam aged about 61 years, S/o. Mohammed Quasim, resident of Behind Press Club, Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Farhat Kai^isar f,Ali,; agqd about 55 years, W/o. Sayed Majid Ali, Occupation Government Seryantr;Teacher, resident of Akbar Khan Bada, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tah^il ; an,d District Bilaspur (C.p.). i; i; :.r > <,. •. ' i • QuaziAbdul Gafur Khan, aged about 73 years, S/o. Abdul Samad Khan, ^) Quazi Abdul Latif Khan, aged about 67 years, :S/p. ; Abdul SaraadKhan, ^ < ' ; Respondents 2 and 3 ;residents of Near Bajpayee Tower;: Idgah Road, Masanganj, Ward No. 18, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ; ^FVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 1 15 OF THB CQDE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 t....^:S^Si I ®^^^ '^ -^- \. 3TI^?T^?^N ^sn ^n^r ^»^TCD v^- WHC^i ^NIW ^^ "^l!4id<Li, ^-at^^^, t^ray r,R. <^o 4^/^T_ ^^......^;..:..;.....;.....;.................--^ 200 3H^T •q^T (yii^^) -p^w^f^3?i1^I ^zrfer^ 1E:nwTf ^ fe^t <F^it<R ^3tf?R 3TT^T LK,_AGARWAL SB; HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE_ 29-6-2009 Shri K.A. Ansad, Sr. Adjy. wifh ShriA.S. Ansad, Adv. for the applicaiit. Shri Prashant Jaiswal, ^r. Adv, wifh Shri Shailendra Shanna, Adv. for respoudent yo. 1. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Ad^, for respondent No.2 aiid 3, With consent of the part|les, heard finally. FeeMug aggrieved by fh^ order dated 10-2-2009, passed by 2nd Additional District Jud^e, Bilaspur ia Civil Suit No. 51A/2008, whereby fhe appli|Dation of the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 ofC.P.|C. has been dismissed by the tdal Court, fhe iastaat revision has| Brief facts of the case a| filed a suit for eviction of defel io. C.G. Acconioiodation Contor^ been filed by fhe appUcaiit. :e that the piai&tiJBs/ respondents adaat as per provisious contamed ^l Act, 1961 mid for fhat purpose, arrears ofrent- Rs. 42,000/- ( he valued his suit before the l^ial Court as (i) for fhe purpose of |i) for flie purpose of eviction -12 times of monthly rent at the ajate of 3000/-, total 36,000/- aad paid court fee of Rs. 4840/-. |By way of fhe application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., th4 contention of the defendaat / petitioner herein. is that as the rate of provisioual rent has been llxed by fhe Court of 2nd Civil J^idge Class I, Bilaspur, where the Is / '% i \..^:lFli 1 "teiP^I 1 ^i"^' XI-HC—78 3?T^T ^T T^-li^ 'cT^n 3?1^T ^qN> ~S^ ^i'Mid'4, ^-d1^jl<o, ^<ni'M*j,< WH^IT ^»*11<t» ^ 200 aii^?T Tr^r (^I^<^r) ^^TaR "?rft^ 3?H^T paijd tte suit was pendiag, at fhe rate ofj fhe order under Section 13 Control Act and the petitiouer fherefore, in the facts aad court fee ought to have been value of the house ia questio4 learned counsel for fhe parties, that fhe plaintiff has valued provisions contaiaed ia Sectioa t} is proper aad dismissed the app3 Shri Ansari, learaed S4 appMcaat subiuits fhat as ti^|< provisioual rent has been fixed Class I, at Rs. 100/- per monfh has wrongly retum fhe plamt Conrt, and, fherefore, the order aiid deserves to be set aside. Per contra, Shri Prashaiit appearmg for fhe respondent I^ learaed counsel appeariiig on 3 submit fhat the tnal Court's sound prmciple of law aad, fherj disinissed. silb circutsistaaces 4»i^(d4l'fTnTT^f ^ fe1E^t <F^^i< i:»>3tRW3^T jRs. 100/- per moufh by passing >-section (2) of Accoiaxnodation ^s paying the rent accordiagly, of fhe case, advaloruza valuiag the suit oa fhe snarket The tdal Court after hearing vide the impugned order, held suit ia accordan.ee wifh the (xi) of the Coiul Fee Act^ which |cation ofthe petitioner. Counsel, appeariag for the ?re is no atonim.ent, as the p3y tlie Coiut of 2nd Civil Judge 4nd as fhe 2nd Civil Judge Class I 1:0 be presented before the tdal |assed by the trial Court is iUegal aiijt Jaiswal, learaed Sr. Counsel, |o. 1 and Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, be|ialfofthe respondents No. 2 aiid ^rder is well reasoned based on Sier^fore, fhe revision is Uable to be S {-i^-^^'^^ ^ ^^ XI-HC—78 ^n f<^i<=F ^^ W^T s?5^icr? ^ ^Wdl $h*ia<»» TST ^\WM^, %9^1^<!<o, T^<ni^lj,< ^.^....0-..^......^..2-.(.<r^.........TF^200 3=n^T "^^ (^y^f) ^mw^tiTr^^T Having heard leamed inasmuch as the suit has be ^OTta^ 'RTR^rf ^f 'feT^ <F?i^i< i?3tRma^iT couusel for the parties, haviag perused fhe records, I am of t|ie considered opmiou fhat there is no iafirmity or i31ega2ity ia t^ie ordef passed by fhe trial Court of its supervisoiy jurisdici in valued m accordao.cc with the provisions contaiaed ia Sectio4 7(xi) oftlie Court Fees Act. It is weU settled pi-incipl^ oflaw fhat this Court, ia exercise [on. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should ^efrsdxi itself fi-om iaterfermg with the order passed by fhe Court below except ia such cases where perversity, iUegalily or jurisdictjlonal error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in tt{e present case. The petition beiag wit]|iout substance, deseryes to be disxnissed and is hereby dismds^ed. —- Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge 4-