IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) NO.'Z-Q^&OF 2Q11 :s'itWS! B@^£ST PETITIONERS [Defendants} 1) Mohd. Salim Khan, S/o Haji Ibrahim aged about 40 years, R/o Nagar, Durg, Tehsil & District- ,.»<^ ^es^ /l^-^y ..•-'" <Svf""\^-"' >^^:..--A" <?<' RESPQNDENTS [Defendant No. 1} IDefendant No.2] ''Vi [Defendant No.3i [Defendant No.6\ 2) Sanjeev Agrawal, S/o Late Ramkumar Agrawal, aged about40 years, R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Amarchand Rath, S/o Late S.N. Rath, aged about(piyears, R/o House No.732, near S.A.F., Sindhiya Nagar, Durg, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.) 2) Smt. Jyotsana Rath, Wd./o Late S.N. Rath, aged about 58 years, House No.631, near S.A.F., Nagar, Durg, Tehsil & District-Durg .'I. 3) Smt. Neelima Mahapatra, W<t.7o Shri Manoj Mahapatra, R/o LIGJS42, HUDCO Sector Bhilai, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.) 4) ^ Smt. Geetanjali Rath.WlduhyjfLate S.N. Rath, R/o House No. 732, near S.A.F., Sindhiya Nagar, Durg, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As mentioned In the cause title. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As mentioned in the cause title. -^- l^ ,;-• ii 4 % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 3040 of 2011 PETIT10NERS Mohd. SalimKhan & another. RESPONDENTS Versus Amarchand Rath and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Dubey, PL for the State/respondent No. 5. ORAL ORDER (16.06.2011) Heard. 1. Instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Durg in Civil Suit No.119-A/2010 whereby the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed. 2. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned counselappearing for the petitioners would submit : the plaintiff/respondents neither vatued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, consequential relief of declaration claimed in the suit nor paid the proper court fee. Despite above, the objection raised by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.2.2011, therefore, the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional illegality and deserves to be set aside. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material avaflable on record including impugned order. 4. . A bare perusal of the plaint averments and the relief claimed would revesl : the suit has been fited by the plaintiff/respondents ^.Ci :l,-{-!,^ •F^^^^ ^ S° a u,,.?'1"^'1 -X- claiming relief of declaration to the effect that the impugned sale deeds were executed, based on forged will-deed and are void and in- effective. Consequential relief at all has not been claimed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed. In above circumstances on the face it cannot be said that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit or not paid proper court fee and the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit. 5. The Supreme Court in case of Sr/ Rathnavarmaraja v. Smk Vimla reported in AIR 1961 SC 1299 has held that the question of Court fees is primarily the question between the plaintiff and the State. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of Court fee payable on the plaint. The Court fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the state and not to arm a contesting pari:y with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of nature. 6. In view of foregoing, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. •^,-- "'\'