''"-^.".^ /r^/j '••"> vy ^ ^n IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} REVIEW PETITION N0. ^ OF 2011 (Arising outof order dated 20.0l,.2011,passed in W.P.(Art. 227) No. 313/20tl) APPLICANT Defendant No.3 ,\\ ^4 \^t^S^ ^^^^'^...rf--"" v^^-^' '0^d'"'^" ^ ^BaJaram Joshi, S/o Late Ramchandra Joshi, aged about 75 years, Unemployed, R/o Ganjpara Ward No. 33, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Through: Power of Attorney Holder Ghanshyam Joshi ^ NON-APPLICANTS Plalnfiffs ^ ^«.n.^t0 VERSUS ^. Smt. Kamala Devi (since y wrongly shown Kamal Devi), late Gopjkrishna Joshi, aged about 67 years, Madhusudan Joshi, S/o Late Gopikrishna Joshj, aged about 47 years, Ashok Kumar Joshi, S/o Late Gopikhshna Johi, aged about 38 years, •y All three R/o - M.I.G. - 01/511, Hudko, Bilai Nagar, Tahsjl and District Durg (C.G.) Smt. Prafull Devi, D/o late Gopikrishna Joshi, W/o Shri Bhagawandas Kudal, R/o House No. 506, Kuthale Street, West mangalwar; Post Solapur (maharashtra) r Defendants 5. /HJV LtL'H^^ 6. y 6.A 6.B > ./'- 9. Gaurishankar Joshi, S/o Late Ramnarayan Joshi, aged about 45 years, Shopkeeper, R/o Khairi, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) Jugal Kishor Joshi (Since dead), by Legal Representatives Vishnu Prasad Joshi, S/o Late Jugal Kishor Joshi, aged about 54 years, Govt. Servant, R/o R.P.H. Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Smt Dhannpurna Vyas, S/o Late JugalKishor Joshi, W/o Nand Lal Ji Vyas, aged about 62 years, R/o Balgaon, Taluka, Amaravati, District Amravati (Maharashtra) Shalik Ram Joshi, S/o Late Ra Chandra Joshi, aged about 70 years, Advbcate, R/o Aamapara, Ward No. 34, Durg (C.G.) Kamla Bai Karesiya, W/o Late Sita Ram Ji Karesiya, aged about 64 yeas, Unemployed, R/o 29/30/ M.I.D.C. Amravati (Maharashtra) Annapurana Karesiya, W/o Shri Bhikham Chand Ji Karesiya, aged about 50 years, r T / £0, dependent, R/o S.P.S. Colony, Sirpur, Kagaj Nagar, Andhra Pradesh Smt. Savitri Bai Joshi, W/o Late Ramnarayan Joshi, aged about 76 years, R/o Village Khairi, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ,^" ,.. . APPLICATION UNDERSECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8PUR Review Petition No. 9 of201 1 l^ APPLICANT : BalaramJoshi Defendant No. 3 Versus NON-APPLICANTS : Smt. Kamala Devi & Others Plaintiffs APPUCATI01 SECTtON 114 OF THE CODE OF CFVIL PROCEDUgE fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Affarwal, J.V Present : Shri RN Jha, Advocate for the applicant, ORALORDER (Passedon 14.02.2011) 1. This review petition is conskiered in the Chamber under the provisions of Rule 76(2) ofthe High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2005. 2. By this petition, the applicant seeks review of the order dated 20.01.2011, passed in W.P.(227) No. 313 of2011 (Balaram Joshi v. Smt. Kamal Devi & others). This Court, after having considered all tfae aspects of the matter, dismissed the petition holding that "the issue involved m this case is whether partition took place between the parties or not. Issue in this regard has already been framed, and fiirther, whether or not partition took place between the parties is a matter to be decided, based on evidence". After hearing the counsel appearing for the applieant on iie grounds taken in tiie review petition, this court is of the opinion that the applicant failed to make out any ground for review of the order dated 20.01.2011. A bare perusal ofthe pleadings ofthe parties filed in W.P.(227) No. 313 of 201 1 (Annexure P/2 & P/3) would reveal 4. ^ that the petitioner failed to raise specifically any issue regarding court fees and valuation in the written statement filed by him. The application for fi^ming issue was filed at Ifae stage offinal argument. therefore, the trial court has rightly declined to frame above issue and there is no apparent error in the order passed by this court on 20.01.2011. Further, Ihe Supreme Court in case of Sri RathnavarmaraJa v. Smt. Vimla has held that the question of court fee 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 plaintiffhas still no right to move the superior eourts by appeal or in revision against the order adjiadging paymeat ofcourt fee payable on the plaint. The court fees Aet was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit ofthe State and not be ann a contesting party with a weapon ofdefence to obstruct the trial ofnature. Applying the well settled principles of law to the present case, there is no ground avatfable for review of the order dated 20.01.2011 under Ifae garb of the review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue Ifae entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal aad the same isliot sustainable in law. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, thts review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge lA Sahu 'AIR 1961 SC 1299