HIGH C€3URT CF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR Writ Pemicn (Art.227} No.1481 of 20?? Pemianem 1. Sourabh Shukia, aged 15 years Plaintiff 2. Kumari shrushti 5hukia, aged 11 years Both S/o & Dio. Durgesh Kumar Shukla, Minor, thmugh their natural guardian mother Smt.Usha Shukia, aged 41 years Wio Durgesh Kumar Shukla, Hindu 3. Smt.Usha Shukia, aged 41 years Wlo Durgesh Kumar Shukla AH Rio Viiiage Bandhavkhar, Tahsii Paii, District-Biiaspur (C.G.) 5 Versus Respondents . Kuibir Singh Jat, aged 3S yeais $fe Defendants Chandrasingh Jat, R/o Village Urja Nagar Dipika, Tahsii Kaighora, District Korba (C.G.) k) Durgesh Kumar Shukia, aged 45 years S/‘o Late Ramashankar Shukla, R/c Bandhakhar Tahsii, Paii, District Kerba (C.G.) (V 3. State of Ch‘natiisgar'n, thrcug'n Coiiecier, Korba, Tahsii and District Korba (C.G.) {Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Conslitution of lndia) Mr.Vijay Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Alok Kumar Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. Nane present for respondent No.2. :‘vis Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.3/State. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.; ORDER (ORAL) . (27-7—201 1) . Ey this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r'ne petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.1 1 .Z‘Glo passed by the District Judge, Korba in Civil Suit No.3A/09, whereby i'ne District Judge, Korba has directed the petitioners for payment of court fees in accordance with the valuation of plaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdtction while dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule t4. of the Code of Civil Procedure. . After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admits and submits that the present petitioners are not party to sale deed. As per their claim. aforesaid sale deed is not binding upon them and they have tiled suit for ... 2,— deciaratian. Learned counsel further submits that the peiiticnersfpiaintiff d6 nct want to avsid or have ciaimed that document is nuii and void. As per case of ihe petitioners/piaintrffs, a‘faresaid saie deed vaiued R31 1 ,96,000i— is voic.‘ a'cwment and not finding upan them, therefore, he wants to me appropriate appiicaticn for amendment in p!aint, especiaiiy relating to valuatien and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and seeks to withdraw this writ petition. . As per pieading made in the piaint, the present petitioners/piaintitis are not required to ciaim reiief of declaration of saie deed nuii and void. They are nor party to such saie deed, in these circumstances, pecuniary jurisdiciion of the piaint and ciaim on the basis of such deed is whoiiy unwarranted. . The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid iiberty. . it appears from the order impugned and copy of the piaint that if appiication for amendment n piaint relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is fiied, then same wouid be beyond the peculiar jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, if such appiication is tiied on behalf of the petitionersfpiaintitis‘ then the District ,JudgeiCourt below who is aiso empowered to distribute civil work amongst Judges of its district and shalt act accordance with Section 'i5i3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958 either transfer the suit to the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction in the iight of aforesaid amendment appiication or tri and decide by it. No order as to costs. a interim appiication, if any. stand disposed of. Sd/— T. P. Sharma Judge