.^.^ c^' < IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. T^ OF 2009 APPLICANT ^ DEFENDANT No.1 ...'^•.^Tl-^ .^....••••:::""7L^^^^1 ^'•-Slv\^--- Q^.--"" \^f RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT No.2 ^ DEFENDANT No.3 DEFENDANT No.4 ^ JograjSingh BabraS/o LateShri Kishun Singh Babra, Aged about 66 years, Occupation - Business R/o Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tehsil Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh VERSUS ^-1. Navraj Singh Babra, S/o Prithviraj Singh Babra, Aged about 43 years R/o Gudri Bazar, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ^-2. Bhupendra^Singh Babra, S/o Lafe Ranvir Singh Babra, Aged about46 Years, Occupation - Cultivation, R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Police Station and TehsilAmbikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ,,3. Divraj Singh Babra,S/o Prabhudayal Singh Babra,Aged about 36 years, Occupation - Business, R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tehsii Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through ^Collector, Surguja, Chhattisgarh CIVIL REVISION UNDERSECTION 115 OF THECODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 <4- ^I^T ^RT ftFIW ^ST ^S^l ^^W ~T^ ^l^!d<4, ^•d1'9J!^, fsFTTRy ^TO^%i^""^-"""'-^^-""""""'"""'^2007 an^i ^qr (^(^<ss<^) "^mw^f^^^ S.B^Hpn'ble Shri Justice N^ 11.11.2009 Shri RS Marhas, Advocs|te for applicant. Ms. Sangeeta Misrha, P^ne Lawyer for State. Heard on admission. The instant revision arii ViVS^-f -V^ ^ fe^ ^f3R?R "^ 'stf^r ^^ . Aaarwal ss out of order dated 05.10.2009, passed by lllrd Civil Judge, Cl^ss II, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No. 87-A/2007. The fact briefly stated as|under: The plaintiff/respondent jNo. 1 instituted a suit against the defendants including the appti4ant seeking relief of declaration of title, possession, permanent ingunctjon and for mesne profit from the date of institution of suit tijl recovery of possession. During the pendency of suit, the appli<j;ant preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC challe|iging that the plaintiff has not paid the court fee upon the amount of mesne profit and therefore the suit is bad in law and deserveslto be dismissed. ! The trial court, vide jnnpugned order dated 05.10.2009, dismissed the said application, holding that no court fee is required to be paid by the plaintiff upon the amount of mesne profit ciaimed for the period after institution of suit till recovery of possession. 1 Having heard the couns^l appearing for the applicant and having.perused the order impdgned, it is clear that the trial court ^ o i;-!^ ^^^ ^^11'^ <T^HT^jT^—rs/95—1 1/2008—1,00,000. 3^^l^T'f^FrNF TWT ^si^i <§F^? Sa^ \\\ '3^ "^I^H^, ^Tilyjl^, "f^rray 'kH» ltl%i1?^' "^200^ ^I^T1cra^F(^5?l??r) ^mw^^rw^T an^ has not committed irregularity in passing the saicjl payable on amount of mesne| In the result, the refi deserves tobe and is hereby|dismissed Consequently, all pend| 2--^. ^N-^NN ^ron ^ fe^ ^N^n ^T ^R^T^T^i jurisdictional illegality or material order, inasmuch as court fee is not profit as claimed. nsion being devoid of substance atadmission stage. |ng applications stand disposed of. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge