IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(U/A 227) No. g8 } 6 mm §§§§$€§LE 8E§§$§L§ PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Musammat Aaveda Khatun, aged about 65 years, ’D/o Late Fakir Mohamad, W/o Mohd. Rauf Khan, R/o Fakirabada, near City Jhanda Chowk, Pandari Raipur, Tahsil & District — Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] Zameer Ahmad Ansari, aged about DEFENDANTS 61 yéars, S/o Late Fakir Mohamad, R/o Fakirbada, near City Jhanda Chowk, Pandari Raipur, Tahsil & District i Raipur (C.G.) Lukman Bhai aged about 35 years, S/o not known to the petitioner Raju Bhai aged about 30 years, S/o not known to the petitioner Kaju Bhai aged about 28 years, S/o not known to the petitioner Nisa'r Bhai aged about 35 years, S/o not known to the petitioner Rustam Bhai aged about 76 years, S/o not known to the petitioner Salim Bhai aged about 40 years, S/o not known to the petitioner 8] Alauddin aged about 52 years, S/o not known to the petitioner Smt. Putli Bai aged about 40 years, D/o not known to the petitioner 10] Irshad Bhai aged about 38 years, S/o not known to the petitioner 1 1] Zunaid Master, agedabout 32 years ' S/o no’t known to the petitioner Istekhar Bhai, aged about 35 years, S/o not known to the petitioner ..........deleted 13] Dr. ‘Anish, aged about 27 years, S/O net known to the petitioner l4] Ishtyak Ali, aged about 30 years, S/o not known to the petitioner 15] Kalam Bhai aged about 35 years, S/o not known to the petitioner ’ Above all R/o — ”Fakirbada, near City Jhanda Chowk, Pandari Raipur, Tahsil & District — Raipur (CG) V 16] State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G,) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @Y M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU'R WRIT PETITION (227! NO. 5816 OF 2010 PETITIONER/ : Musammat Aaveda Khatun PLAINTIFF Versus Zameer Ahmad Ansari and others. N Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Sin e Bench: Hon'hle Shri N.K. J. Present : Shri M.V. Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondents No. 1. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 15th day of April, 2011) The instant petition calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 04-08-20 10 whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1870 dated 10-09—2007 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Petitioner claimed exemption nom payment of Court Fees in terms of Notification No. F.9.83~b~XXI, dated 01— 04-1983 issued by State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. According to the petitioner, she is not having any independent source of income and is- unable to pay the required amount of Court fees. 3. An enquiiy was conducted by the Trial Court. Considering the prayer clause i9 of the plaint wherein petitioner had claimed 1 /3rd share in the suit property and also of the rent amounting to Rs.10,000/—, dismissed the application holding, she is entitled for Rs.39,996/— per annum as share of rent. (9\ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mrmal Kumar vs. Surajdin,‘ reported in 1985 M.P. Weekly Notes, Note No.426', would submit the subject matter of the suit cannot be considered for the purpose of exemption of Court fees and the Trial. Court’s order dismissing the petitioner’s application is without jurisdiction. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused he order impugned. 6. The Trial Court on enquiry, had not found petitioner having yearly income more than Rs.6,000/— but considering the subject matter of the suit, dismissed the application which is unwarranted and uncalled for. 7. The amount which is presently not available to the petitioner and is in dispute cannot be considered as her income for the purpose of exemption of Court fees, as held in the matter of Nirmal Kumar vs. Surajwn (Supra). 8. For the reasons mentioned herein above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned is not sustainable in law, deserves to.be and is hereby set aside and the petitioner’s application for exemption of Court fees is allowed. 9. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. ‘ M \‘ Sdl— ,K. Agrawa‘ Judge . ‘H. ntig t