IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BLLASPUR J6^ WRIT PETITION (ART. 227) N0: ~ OF 2010 PETITIONERS/: (Non-applicants)/ (Defendants) Suresh Agrawal, S/o Umashankar Agrawal, Aged about 60 years. *»" ^^My ..^y . c^\/^ y^yyl ,^'y: ^'.^/\/' ^"J^ ^" 3. Smt. Vimla Agrawal, W/o Late Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 45 years. Mahesh @ Mayank Agrawal, S/o Late Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 24 years. Ks/^-^ :a^. 4. Nandkishore Agrawal, S/o Umashankar Agrawal, Aged about 49 years. All are Agriculturists and residents of Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/ (Applicants)/ (Plamtiffs) - Versus - 1. ' Smt. Mamta Shyamsundar Agrawal, W/o Late Shyamsundar Agrawal, Aged about 35 years. ..••KV^iiSieSSiOewsw 2. Harish Agrawal, S/o Late Shyamsundar Agrawal, Aged about 11 years. 3. Gaurav Agrawal, S/o Late Shyamsundar Agrawal, Aged about 9 years. No.2 8s 3 Minors through Suit Friend and Natural Guardian mother Smt. Mamta Shyamsundar Agrawal, W/o Late Shyamsundar Agrawal. (Respondent/ Defendant No.2) 4. Tarachand Agrawal, S/o Umashankar Agrawal, Aged about 55 years. All residents of Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN_ UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC., IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE /I The petitioners, above named, most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under: - PETi H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 6695 Of 2010 Suresh AgFawa! ana others. Smt. Mamta Shyamsundar. and others WRiTPETITIONUNDERARTiCLE2270FTHECONSTITUiON_QF (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) fe-i. Present : Mr. RajeevShrivastava, counselforthe petitioners. Mr. Anup ?^ajumdar, counsel for respondents. ORAL ORDER (04.07.20111 Heard. 1. Instantpetition, fiied underArticle227.of'theConstitutionof India, cails in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by Adyitional District Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon in Miscelianeous C.ivii Case No. 10/2010 whereby and v/hereunder piaintiffs' application filed under Section 35 of the Court Fees Acf is allowed and were exempted from payment of court fee. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: THe piaintiffs instituted a suit against petitioners here.in claiming joint ownership in the suit property, for declaration of alleged will deed dated 1.4.2010 asunauthorized, jn-effective and for partition and permanent injunction. Along with the piaint they have aiso filed appiication under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act claiming exemption from payment of court fee on the ground that their income is lessthan Rs.25,000/- per annum. 3. Triai Court, vide order. dated 5.7.2010 sent the matter to ths Coliector, Rajnandgaon for enquiry. Enquiry report was submitted by the Collector, according to which.the incomewas Rs.l3,000/-which is iess .than Rs.25,000./-.. On the basis of above report, the triai Court ailowed plaiotiffs' application and exemptsd them from payment ffl EB i!M •l!:'i1!"1:'T' •I ijijii^lii'i^f; ^^^^g?^^iS ^^^^^^;^^^^^^S^^i"^&'is"^^^ -.^^ ^ y of court fee in terms of notifieation issued under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. Hence thls petition. 4. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submits : the trial Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercising the power ror grant of exemption of payment of court fee without eonducting enquiry and further in holding that the matter ofCourt Fee is a matter between the State and the plaintiff. 5.. On the other hand, Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiffs would submit : on enquiry it has been found by the trial Court that the plaintiffs' income is less than Rs.25,000/- ; the matter of court fee is essentially between the plaintiffs and the State and in view ofabove, exemption granted by the trial Court cannot be found fault v/ith and petition deserves to be I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned order. 7. Notification issued under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act exempts from payment of court fee to the categories of persons mentioned in the Schedule whose annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from ali sources does not exceed Rs.25,000/-. It is not in dispute that women and minors are aiso exempted under the above notification and the piaintjrfs are women and minors. 8. According to the Notification a person belonging to the particular class as mentioned in the Notification if his earning is less than Rs.25,000/- per annum then he would nct be required to pay the Court Tee. The Court after getting the report of Collector has exempted piaintiffs from payment of court fees. Further the matter of c-outt fee is essentially between the State and the plaintiffs. 9- The Supreme Court in case of Sri Rathnavarmarsja v. Smt. Vimfa reported in AIR 1961 SC 1299 has held that the question Court fee is primarity the question between the plaintjff and the State. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court II f M s's ^f'. ^ fee has not been paid by the plainfiff has still no right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of Court fee payable on the plaint. The Court fees Act was enactedto coliectrevenue for the benefit of the state and notto arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstrust the trial of nature. 10. Therefore, the trial Court, in the facis and. circumstances of the case, has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order warranting interference of fhis Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Sndia. 11. It is well settled principie of law that this Court, in exereise.of its superi/isory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, iltegaiity, irregularity or jurisdictionai error js writ large on the face of the record, 'which is not in thepresent case. 12. Therefore, the petition being without substance is (iable to be and is herebydismissed. 13. Noorderastocosts. Sd/- N.K-Agrawal Judge ,1 M 11 If IIit 1 ir-'"-"iifiir