BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .2^^ „ / ^) ^".^W1 WRIT PETITION (^e-) N0. Z (o^ 1^2£^-' PETITIONERS; PLAINTIFFS Ai--' ^ ^j^ ^Y^W ...^''y i.y/Ar''/l.< »- ..-i' 1. ^ Smt. Kamla Devi, D/o - Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about - 60 years, R/o - Village Muwarpara, Tahsil - Sitapur, Occupation - Shopkeeper, Post - Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) -f- / ! ' , 2. Smt. Nirmla Devi, D/o - Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about - 52 years, R/o - Ramsu-iujganj, Tahsil - Pal, Occupation - Shopkeeper, Districf - Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS 1. Shri Biharilal Gupta @ Jwala Prasad Gupta, S/o - Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about 63 years; 2; Shri Bansi Prasad Gupta, S/o - Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about - 55 years. ^ • 3. Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, S/o - Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about - 46 years. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are residents of Ramanujganj, Ward No. 10, Occupation - Shopkeeper, Tahsil - Pal, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Ramanujganj, Samudayik Vikas Khand - Ramanujganj, Tahsil - Pal, Dista-ict - Surguja (C.G.) [Formal Party] ;l7t^^;;r^":"t:t;T,;i 5. Sfate of Chhattisgarh, Th'rough: Collector, Dista-ict Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) [Formal Party] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition ('227')No. 269 of2011 :iE> PETITIONERS Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS Defendants Smt. Kamla Devi & another VERSUS Shri Biharilal Gupta @ Jwala Prasad Gupta & others Writ Petition (•227^No. 1076 of2011 PETITIONERS Plaintifis RESPONDENTS Defendants Smt. Kamla Devi & another • • • VERSUS Shri Biharilal Gupta @ Jwala Prasad Gupta & others fWMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA^ rSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal. J.) Present : Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. ShriManoj Paranjpe, Advocate forrespondentNo. 1 to 3. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4&5. fe1 ORALORDER (Passedon 20.06.2011) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Writ Petition (227) No. 269/11, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of orders dated 09.12.2010 & 07.01.11, passed by the Addl. District Judge (FTC) Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No. 5- A/2007, whereby and whereunder petitioner's application filed under Qrder 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 ofCPCwere rejected, r^ and Writ Petition (227) No. 1076/11 caUs in question the legaUty and propriety oforder dated 21 .01.2011, passed by the Addl. District Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No. 5- A/2007, whereby petitioner's opportunity to lead evidence on issue No. 5 has been closed. 2. Brieffacts ofthe case are that: plaintiffs/petitioners preferred a suit against the respondents claiming relief of declaration of title and pemianent injunction. Suit was valued for the purpose ofcourt fee andjurisdiction at Rs.400/- (Rs. 200/- for declaration and Rs. 200/- for pennanent injunction). Objection was raised by tiie respondents by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC on the ground that suit is neither properly valued nor proper court fee has been paid. The trial court rejected the respondents application and against that rejection order respondents prefen-ed Writ Petition (227) No. 3982/09 before this court. This court, vide its order dated 30.07.2009, directed the trial court to decide issue No. 5 frdmed in the case as preliminary issue as the issue was akeady framed as issueNo. 5. 3. The trialcourt, in order to decide issue No. 5 first, started recording evidences ofthe parties. Defendants adduced their evidences and thereafter case was fixed for plaintifFs evidence. Meanwhile, the petitioners, by filing application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 ofCPC sought amendment in the plaint seeking exemption from court fees. The above applications were rejected by the trial t\>V to court vide orders dated 09.12.2010 & 07.01.1, and vide order dated 21.01.2011 also closed their opportunity to lead evidence on issue No. 5. Hence these petitions. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit: the trial court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in dismissing petitioners applications and inclosing their opportunities lead evidence. According to him, the petitioners have filed amendment application in order to show that petitioners are entitled for exemption ofcourt fees under Section 35 ofthe Court Fees Act and documents werealso filed to that effect, and therefore, the trial court should not have rejected above applications. 5. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learaed counsei appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit : the relevant issue at Ifaat time was whether suit was properly valued and accordingly proper court fee was paid or not. Whether or not petitioners were able to pay court fees wastotally irrelevant at thattime, and therefore, the trial court has rightiy dismissed petitioners application and has rightly closed petitioners opportunity to lead their evidences on issue No.5. 6. I have heard learaed counsel appearing for the parties and perosed the orders impugned. 7. The relevant issue before the trial court waswhether or notsuit was properly valued and proper Gourt fees Was paid, therefore, for the S^A^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^ .-<^-- ...A ''"4-< /e"^\ I 1B :^ ...^i / '%•'»€/ ^Asd?r l\^' above purpose, neither amendment application nor the document filed by the petitioners at that time was relevant, and in that view of the matter, the trial court has not committed any iitegularity in dismissing petitioners application for amendment as well as for taking documents on record. 8. So far as order of trial court, by which petitioner's opportunity to lead their evidence on issue No. 5 was closed, is concemed, in the considered opinion ofthis court, the petitioners should have given at least one opportunity to lead their evidence on issue No. 5 and the respondents should have been compensated by imposing reasonable costs, and thus, order dated 21.01.2011 suffers from jurisdictional irregularity. The same deserves to be and hereby set aside L For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, WP (227) No. 269/11 is dismissed and WP(227) No. 1076/11 is allowed to the above extent. The trial court is directed to give at least one opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence with regard to issue No. 5subjecl to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- payable to the respondents, and thereafter shall decide issue No. 5 expeditiously in accordance with law on its own merits. No order asto costs.