-JF 81N6L! bl't • ^ -f'\Qf INTHE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITION No.2--Z 2-2-/2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^\. 3. €^/ 5<"^^ Khorbahra Chandrakar S/o Gend Lal Chandrakar, aged about 58 years, R/o Vill. Khamharia, Thana & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Smt. Dashoda Nishad Wd/o Tijuram Nishad, aged about 23 years, Smt. Parniya, W/o Bisahuram JNTishad, aged about -43 yrs. Bisahuram S/o Late Bahur Singh Nishad, aged about4syrs. All are R/o Vill. SE P.0. Khamharia Thana 65 Distt. Mahasamund WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA tlE'I'&lLg_QE-'EHE-rm: XI-HC-22 3ST^TP(RTO', aTnyqs, fc)dl<1^< 3Tr^5T^i^cb '^''P.^oY 2-7'2-2-/2^3<S *<1*1WI StiHlch ••••••••••••••••••••• p^ 200 f^% sn^rqiT f?:iw3n^r OTN)flf?cT .-—'•"?."" sn^TTOtraT^fstT 2S.08.2006 Shri Neelkanth Malavil/a, Arguments on Order dictated as folloWs admisston Olral Order This is a petltion filed of India, challenging the 30.3.20(»(Annexure-P/1) 3.4.20)6 (Annexure-P/2), pending in the Court o^ Mahasqpiund (CG). Mncter Article 227 of the Constitutlon l^gality and validity of order dated afid framing of issues by order dated dassed in Civil Suit No. 1 B/200S First Additional District Judge, delfendant fdr It appears that by 4 objecUon raised by the payment of court Tees has brief facts are that one Tiiu on 11.9-^304 ^nd a claim the wife, father and mother aaainst the sole defendant, that since the service conneyion and the electric pump inst^lled order, the deceased recelv^d contact with the said wire; the plaintiffls have shoujn 'sbiqfil'fl^ HlildTfffsi^ rfSfKR: ^sri^Tsn^T , counsel for the petitioner. heard- flrat order dated 30.3.2006, soma regardlng exemption from t^een decidal by the trial Court. The ptem dted of? account ofelectrocute sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was fited by ^fthe deceasec^. Thls dalm was filed jsetitioner herein, making allegations wire m between electiteity pote by tha defendant was not in electric shock when he came in |According to the plaint altagattons, to be falling under speciat^ vtel ^? XI-HC-22 SII^TEBT i^iRisn^T iti'ii'h fff?(T 3 r ^ww^, ®Tn*f'i6,Riciitiy .^,P.Mo. 2.^2-^-/5-^o 6 *<liwi snnich •••--•••••••••••••••• ^pj-y 200 Rl<>«A '2. category and they have court fee by notlflcation of Section 35 of the Court objection vide impugned submitted by the District section of the sodety and notlfication issued under certificate to the said effect d^imed exemrtton from payment of Strte ^ivemment Issued under Act- The trtal Court decided the ordfer holdina that on the ba^sof report G^iltector, they belong to the weaker |hey were entitled to @e* beneflt of 35 of the Court Fees Ad. A ateo filed. the Fete S^ction vyas Section 35 ofthe Couitt remit fees, 'rt has beenl Government mav, from tlmel Gazette/reduce or remit, territories under Its admirtistration mentloned in the flrst and annexed, and mav In like m^nner In exercise of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the ! No. 9-1-83-B-XX!, dated ftie of the State of Madhya mentioned in Artictes 1-A 5, 17 and 21 of the second olaint bv the fdlowina °hl<<f!1<fl'f HIHI-lV^'te^<RlWI<. ^srf^iTan^T Fees Act aives power to reduce or provkled that the apprt^rtete |to time by ndification In the Offtelal the wrtiole or in anv part oS the all or anv cS the fees second schedules to the said Aet cancri or varv such order. ih DQDi/era conferred by sectltm 35 of the $tate Government by Notificatlon F. |lst Apri!, 1^3, renc.itted inthe whQls as tt then was, the court fees 2 of the first schedute and Arttetes ^chedute to the sakl Act payable on cat|egories of persons whose annual Prattesh, arid ^&s. XI-HC-22 ^st -^ww^, ts^ww, Kv\wy. n^T'ra^ W.P.^o. 272-'2-/'2^01 tlliwi shHiq> •-••-•-•••••••••••••• ^- 200 fc|<l«^ STI^iqiT R-ii+sn^T Shli»hHf?(T .^.s-- 3T1^T?RtTCR<lf?g' --s'-^ income tmmedfately preced^ig from all sources does ntrtexjceed ffl 00 (IV) ^ (vi) member member minors; wornen; artisen; unsitiUed labourer ^l Scheduled Tribes; 4>f Schedulal Ca^es; (vii) landless (viii) pereon b^ion; socieh/. labourer ^iongir^ to 8i6 weaker secSons of anU The trial Court hoklind! below the Dovertv line section of the scxsiety, gijs aforesald notifteation issued Act. A perusal of the imc was suffteient material with There appears to be no il the Detition, chattenaina dlsmissed. So far as order rfet concemed, it appears that written statement that th^ necessary party and in th^lr dismissed but the issues iri <»ii<it<i<n-iw^s ^' fei^t <.R|(^|<. ^iarf^iTsn^T ig the date of pr^entrtkm of plaint mpees sh( thousand, namely:- that these persons are ttie pei'sons they also belong to the weaka- aitanted them exemDtion under the under Section 35 of the Court Fees impluaned order would show that there ]the trial Court for taking sudi view. ill^gality in the order dated 30-3.2006; the validttv of the sad order is atating to framing of issues are ha-e is a pleading in Para-12 of the electricity department Is also a absence, the suit is Uable to be this regard have not beefl framed. F "'"^IW^^^^Bn^B ^aitEjB^>;-^_^ ^.w^- XI-HC-22 3:ET '<iWlv\tl, W^WW, [^wwy, ^. P'TNO' 2l:7' Z^-/2^3^ tlllMI Sh*<|t«i ••••••••••••••••••••• g^- 200 i^g sn^rqiT f^TRia.n^r Sh*li*Hf?(T \- vatB Oo' :^~ 3TI^T?T(ITWHftcr -^^ Directfons for frannina of issties to the interest of other parijies, which may be corrected in| reason to hear the other sii|le the order so passed is not| side. 1 herebv direct that ini trial Court on 3-4.2006 ar| pleadings raised in Para-l' be framed. ^rafcritT WRTTff teifl-rfSFRK ^SlRfR-Sn^T are not going to causeprejudtee it is simply a procediffal matter the interest of iustice snd for this Is not ahwa^ neceasary because going to adversely effect the other addition to the issuesframed by the aldltional issue perta<ntng to the of the witten statanent shall ateo Wrth the aforesaid d|rection, this petttion stands fmally disposed of. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge (Ifl^^f^)