i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^PUR(C.G< ^s^ CIVIL RBVISION K0< OF 2007 APPLICANT RE^OKIDENTS ~7~ : Ravipal,son of Jaspal Arora, aged abont 36 years »resident of Durg Road» B€metara,DistrictaOarg» (C«G<) VE R SU S smt^ Mumtaz Begum^^idow of Kasam Ali @ Chhunne Mlyan^MohajFmnadan^Qged atoout 70 years» 2^h^ syed Kaasar Ali»son o£ Gauhar Ali aged about 23 years^ 2B^ Sfed Galzar Ali,son of Gauhar All \ aged about 22 years* 2^ Ku.sabeena Begam daughter of Gaahar Alltaged aboat 19 years^ 2D^ Ku.Razxa Begum,daaghter of Gauhar Ali aged about 18 years^ Bahadur Ali,son 6f Kasam Ali^aged aboat 43 years^ 4. Rajjaq Ali^soa of Kasam Ali» aged aboat 38 years^ 5^ Nawab Ali,son of Kasam Ali,aged about 33 years* All are residents of Village- Bazarpara^Bemetara^Tehsil-Bemetara Distrlct-NE>arg( C<»G< ,6. Dr^ Motilal Tawri son of Ganga Bishan Tawrl^aged aboat 51 years< 'y^£^^;<: ff' : 2 : 7» 8. 9. ^" ^ ^. 12. 13. 14. /'. ^. 16o Ramesh Tawri,son of Ganga Bishan Tawrl»aged about 48 years, Both are residents of sadar Bazar. Bemetara,District-Durg(C«G.) parveen Kamar son of Cbetaa singhi Verma,aged aboat 29 yearso Maveen Kamar»son of chetan singh Verma,aged about 26 yearso Both are residents of Village- Hayapara^Bemetara,Tehsil-Bemetara, Dlstrict-DurgCc.G.) Vijay Kuraar Jaisawal.son o£ late Ganesh Prasad Jaisawal,aged about 52 years^ Viaod Kumar Jaiswal,son of late Ganesh prasad Jalswal»aged about 45 years^ . Ramesh Kamar Jais^al^son of late Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal^aged aboat 42 years^ Naveen Kamar Jaiswal,son of late Ganesh prasad Jais^al,aged aboat 40 years^ Shanti Bai» ^ido^ of Gaaesh Prasad Jais^al,aged about 75 years< All are residents of Mahamaya Temple Gandhi Nard, Bhatapara^Tehsll- Bhatapara ,Distr ict-Ralpur(C.G.) Jaspal siogh.son of sardar singh aged obout 60 years Kamaljit @ Deepak son of Jaspal Arora^aged aboat 39 years* S 3 ! ^' residents of Respondents No» 15 & 16 are Darg Road,BemetQra,Dlstrict- Durg(C»G<) 17* smt^ Dimple salaja wife of sarjit Siiigh saluja,aged aboat 34 years, Saluja Medical stores,Pandarlya» Tehs ±1-Pandariya,Distrlct <NKabirdham ^ (C.G.) ^ L. Smt* Rekha^aged 32 years wife of Amolak singh,resident of Gurixnanak Readymade ,M»V»Market»infront of Bus stand»Bllaspur(C^G») 19^ smt» Kancfoaa ^amba,Qged aboiit 3© ^ yearSfWlfe of Deepak ^amba^Anand Hotel^GeetQnjali Bullding^ Old Bas StaBd,Korba»BlstrlctNNKorba(C^G^) MEMO OF CIVIL 8EVISION UNDE8 •SECTION ll5 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0.49 OF 2007 APPL1CANT NON- APPLICANTS Ravipaj Versus Smt. Mumtaz Begum & others. ^^ Present : Shri Y.C. Sharma, counseS for the applicant. Shri V.A. Goverdhan, counsel for Non-appljcants No.1 to8. CIVIL REVISION N0.50 OF 2007 APPLICANTS : Navin Kumar Verma & anottier Versus NON- APPUCANTS Smt. Mumtaz Begum & others. Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, counsej for the applicant Shri V.A. Goverdhan. counsel for Non-applicante No. 1 to8. Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsei for non-appijcant No.16. REVISION UNDER SECTION 116 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ^CODE^tSOr fSinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.i ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of January, 2010) Cjvil Revision Nos. 49/2007 and 50/2007 arise out of the same order i.e. order dated 26-12-2006 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2006 by Second Civil Judge, Class-11, Bemetara, District Durg therefore, both the revisions are being disposed of by the common order. 2. The fects briefiy stated are as under: Non-applicant/'plaintiffs instituted a suit elajming rejjef of decjaration, injunction and possession with regard to the suit iand. The defendants have filed their written statement. They have also fjjedan application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and contended that the suit is under valued; proper Court fee has not been paid and the suit is barred by limitation. 3. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court rejected the contentions of the defendants with regard to Court fees and vaiuation, aiso held that the question of limjtation as raised cannot be decided at this stage and the same shall be decided after recording evidence in the case. 4. Learned counset appearing for the applicants woutd sutomit that as per Section 7(v)(d) ofthe Court Fees Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') where the land forms part of any estete paying revenue to Government but definite shape of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned, the Court fee is payable on the market value ofthe land. Jn the instant case, the plaintiffs had putttie market value of the suit land as was prevaillng in the year 1962, and, therefore, the valuatjon is per-se illegal ConsequenUy, the Court fee is not paid properly v^iich also effects the jurisdictjon of the Court and therefore, the same order deserves to be set aside. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the partiesand after perusing the order jmpugned, in ttie considered opinion of this Court, the revision preferred by the applicants are devoid of substance. So far as the provision contained in Section 7{v) ofthe Act is concerned, the same stands substituted by M.P. Act of 4/1976 bywhieh clause 7(v)(d) stands omitted and now there is no such clause in the Court fees Act, so far as the State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned. Moreover, the case is covered under Section 7(v)(c) of the Court fees Act under which if the land is not assessed to land revenue, proper valuation would be twenty times of the Jand revenue worked out @ 2/- per acre and in this way, it cannot be said that plaintiffis had under valued ttie suit or not paid the proper Court fee. 6. The Supreme Court in case of Sri Rathnavafmara/a v. Smt Vimla reported in AIR 1861 SC 1299 has held that the question of Court fee is primarily the question between the plalntiff 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 th@ superior Courts by appeal or in revlsion against the order adjudging payment of Court fee payable on the plaint. The Court fees Act was enacted to colject revenue for the benefit oftiie state and not to arm a ^•y^^ "Xvr ^ ^ contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trtel of nature. 7. In view of foreaoina, the revisjons beina devoid of substance are liable to beand hereby dismissed. 8. So far as the question of Ijmitation or any other question which may have been raised by the defendants in their written statement, will certainly be decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence on its own merits in accordance with law. — Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge