c £'\ & (? 3 13 THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT KI.ASPUR W.P.No. V939 _/2004 / PETITIONER Mohd. Khan, 8/oSahebKhan, Aged about 50 years, R/ o Juna Bilaspur, TahsU and IMstrict- Bilaapur (C.G.j. -Versus ^' ^y. •V A^ < .*; »' SESPONDENTS yA'/. .^^ ^y^ <^ .<t-'^ ^•^& '^y 1. IntejaiBiaeoiB.mitt.ee, Masjid, Juufl. BUaspur, 'Bhrough its Secretary, Bflaspur (C.G,). 2. SalLm Ishaqe, S/ o Late Jaan Mohd. Ishaqe, R/ o In front ofBihad Ctnem.a, Tahsil and District-BUaspur (C.G.). WRITPETinON UNDER ARTICLE 331?' OF THE COITSTITUION OF IHDIA FOR XSSUAHCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT. ORDE3i OR DIRECTIOH TO DO JUSTICE IH THB HATTEt. 1»!:u „:iStu-'.aik-it&iias XI-HC-22 3D^t^I R-ii.'b aiisi 9)+i(<ft .^f?U w ^?:^ogiiig,;^F ra%r'B!R'® IIHt'tt tRSRR "-1 200 ^re^sr' 25-8-2004 5hri RqjeiewSfii'ivdStwa, c6unt»l«for'"t|i<Epietiticinerj The peti'tionerhcs pi'cfier'red [tlTiSwrjt petil'ion und«r'Apticle227of whierebyithe learitecf ^VtfrJin^^wh the amount claimed ftwn 1-7-N93 •I'il of RsSpQO/- per month cs per The 'THfepNTTTOf '9jf^t <[«t!ri< ^3iSTO,3m^[ the Constitutidn ofjlrdiabeing^gt'tevedb^ ptaSerfinGivi|Suit(<to.34-^2!001 t(1)t thK?'" Civil .Tudg*. £!ass-11.Bilaspur, 4es<tecj»din9 the issue No.tfc'ft'ofiied on theofayectiem<^theidefend<mts^r4s1^^epe^ srtie?posfieS!Sion is delivered ot the rate pFbvlslons contcdned; In Seetlon 7(1) of theCourt FeesAct, 31870. Bi^ f<Kl^ It^ng^ •fifing.^^id; petition^^^t^^ herein filed a suit againstlrtt^jomio jl^mitt^ & others jn the Court of 3ri Ciyil Judge, ClaSfrII, Bilospui-, foi* s|eeifi<; per'forinonce cf the agreeinent. Ourirg the pendency<^tlwtsuit,lrti^f^ittonermwed Ordw 6 Rulel7of^theC^£.forar^erK)mcntoftheptairrt'ini^i<^ois^ pani-3 he w^htya^Hclmeht to •l|ie effect .that^^^ t^ tlef^hdants^ace '\ \ : - .:;. .; .:t'-^.:'''::: '-• ..-1. ••.•,'• :';''./ .. .--'.i'^'- ..•.:-; , ' disobeying th&ord^of^n^rQry iiyui^ioricmd'^thiepet?/^ lc^ to^thepetitiewr^ Sii^^rt»ey6Sa^;nQ^ w.e.f. l-7-t993+iliytiie^)ossession^is evK|ence, leomed Givil 3'udge^ petitiOnerto pdytheCourt Pee on^^saiclciscerhdried^ deUveretl @ Rs.5,pp0/-7permonthias itoages b«awardcy ag<ans1Sthe<lefenda^ whichthedefemlarrtsf^dediO^ctio^airii^ueNO.U^^ From th®peniSj;i|^^he'o('de|RitrS^^ Weimpugned ortf^dnddii'erted'the -y • El B i—15 XI-HC-22 311^91 ^il feiw^an^n S|TH ^I^ :1, 'g T:4ll<''lli>l^K^'ai*U!?»,.JMBrttt< _3ffI'^T 'qa^ :'?W%.-;-1 WtKtTaX'llch .<.' ...;.-'-:. ;'.:';l:, _»..ua^K4<<"!i.3fcl..& 2(W JN^T" I hav®he d tjsarned countet Learnetl counselfforl+ie;ge"!t| <Bked for-the consequentialripeliefj correct in clecidjng ?t+>e isautrcgainat to pay Court-Fee <»perthe ppovisi^ Act, 1870. As per the pl'ovlsions of the petittoner oannot be asked-foi* section 7 of the;Cotipt Ee®sAct, peyable unclcF^'1+iis Act m the auita computedos fotlows; . 1lor thiBpetitioneronoclmi<sk>n. )io|w^!5ubmift'e<t that^he plaBntiff has theinifore, the trial Court was not |1ic |>lain+iff omd directirg the plaintiff ^ns of Section7(i}of the Coupt (;ees }ection7(i)of^he£oiiMFeesAct,1.870 jptymjent o'f;th^Coui*t Rees. Relevant envisagesFll'iat "the (nnbunt of fee next hereiitcrfter flientioned sbalt be 1E170 orrears (i) Fonnoney! In suitd forj compeRsation.ar 'other |sums pa^ble; clotmed; In this case the tietitionei' aski ir.e.f. 1-7-93 tillthtsposiseasion ja Therefpre, it is cov?red;uadei*'the h consequentidrelief.but'thepe'ti'tibi respondents flTC notcomplying with Court, therefore, he is entitled fo Therefore, a decrec at' the I'ate of thedellver/ of possession be passed. ^l^^l41;41flfl^'^ Is(^i ^R'i-t^K .^. ^gi^iH.aDtw -. .1 ^ntoney^inclyying^sutts'fQrdanwges or ^^tn<rintenance, of wiriulfies, or of p^Bodically)tAcc6nlingto'theambunt ik^d for'the amerdment for the damages .detivered @ R3.5^)QOifr pcf month. i^aeting "Suit •for^dotBcges".^It^is fwt a ir^ has csked fotr''ttUtdanug?s;asthe •K^e femporary irijunctiongronted by the >|' Rs.5,000/- per month ds ttonoges^ ^3.5^X)0/- per mon+h from 1-7-93 till •['frs^fg* r .XI-HC-22 '3^^4l<'i'iJ|;f«fl1Si*is,'(«i<'ii'<:fy 1 srti^T iqii? *<1*ICTI <t>W9i f~ ....USiK.\S 2(10 """"" («)*<%' sii^r^r fe-fi.'* an^r st>+llct»^[50 Barve In order to exeroise the ji Constitutlon of Im;lia<;ashasbeenhi matter of Surya &ev Rni V. Ram (2003)6SCC67Sthdt! "The Hlgh Court to cer'ttoropl jur'isdiction, Court oraythorrty^ was cxeirci!»irgi,jijci|8ic't self-eviclen't. Anei'rorM lengthy !ahd^com(>licffte< aloiigdrawn error jwailable fdr corr it is Reiasonably possiBI same miaterial, tha fin< other,fannQtte«illed jurisdjctionjsonhot be e^ ihisdiction under Article 227 of the |ldbytheHon'btaApexCoUFtlnthe piander Rai ancl^othew reported in te amenoble to correctiou in the error committed bythe Iftose.jMdgnwnt th8;|-lighGout't llon^stioulclibiejiiFiteivorMfl'iichiis ic'nen Tl'ierefore, +he order pasa incorrect In ony way. Thej»etltioni? dismissed. qtl^foliqi.'f *1IWl^ ^| fa^dl ^t^lf([, ^'siisnsn^F i|hicli needs;hCMbe establidiwt by ^ai^umentSKOi' ^jnclulging jnto I, eanncrl' possibly be on (iction byjffrit of.^sertiorari. If to fQrm twci'flpnioris on ttie ling w'rivi&d iO'l'one^lmy or the 1 patentept'br. 'TlieS^iervisory (erciSedosaCourtofappeal." . by the tr'iol Court'fis not ille9at or Idlale to be dismissed and the same is Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ~ Judge [^ft^^'f^ te. ^ai^'. ;I^I:k 1