PETITIONERS: PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARE AT / 1. BILASPUR *7/23 WRIT PETITION (ca NO. Smt. Kamla Devi, D/o — Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about ~ 6O years, R/o * Village Muwarpara, Tahsil — Sitapur, Occupation ~ Shopkeeper, Post — Sitapur, District — Surguja (C.G.) Smt. Nirmla Devi, D/o — Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about — 52 years, .R/o — Ramanujganj, Tahsil — Pal, Occupation — Shopkeeper, District — Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS Shri Biharilal Gupta @ Jwala Prasad Gupta, S/o — Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about 63 years. Shri Bansi Prasad Gupta, S/o — Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about ~ 55 years. Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, S/o — Late Shri Sitaram Gupta, Aged about — 46 years. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are residents of Ramanujganj, Ward No. 10, Occupation — Shopkeeper, Tahsil — Pal, District a Surguja (c.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Ramanujganj, Samudayik Vikas Khand — Ramanujganj, Tahsil — Pal, District — Surguja (C.G.) [Formal Party] ' 1”. @ State of Chhattisgarh, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G. Party] WRIT PETITXON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ONS’TITUTION OF INDIA (@ Through: Collector, District ~ ) [Formal C U (EBA; PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for respondent No. l to 3. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4 & 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20.062011) With the consent of the parties, the rnatter is heard finally. 1. Writ Petition (227) No. 269/ll, med under Article 227 of Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of orders dated 09.12.2010 & 07.01.11, passed by the Addl. District l Judge (FTC) Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No. 5- A/2007, whereby and whereunder ‘petitioner’s application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 ofCPC were rejected; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 269 of201 1 PETITIONERS I : Smt. Kamia Deyi & another Plaintiifs VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS : Shri Biharilal Gupta @ Jwala Prasad Gupta Defendants & others Writ Petition (227) No. 1076 of2011 PETITIONERS 1 Smt. Kamla Devi & another Plaintm's VERSUS > i RESPONDENTS : Shri Biharilal Gupta @ Jwala Prasad Gupta Defendants & others 2 and Writ Petition (227) No. 1076/11 calls in question the legality l and propriety oforder dated 21 .01 .201 l, passed by the Addl. Distn'ct H3 Judge (FTC), Raihanujganj, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No. 5- A/2007, whereby petitioner’s opportunity to lead evidence on issue l No. 5 has been closed. Brief facts of theease are that : plaintiffs/petitioners preferred a suit t against the respondents claiming relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Suit was valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdictidn at Rs. 400/- (Rs. 200/- for declaration and Rs. 200/- i for permanent injunction). Objection was raised by the respondents by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that suit is neither properly valued nor proper court fee has been li' paid. The trial cdurt rejected the respondents application and against vt that rejection order respondents preferred Writ Petition (227) No. 3982/09 before this court. This court, vide its order dated 30.07.2009, directed the trial court to decide issue No. 5 framed in the case as preliminary issue as the issue was already named as issue No. 5. The trial court, in order to decide issue No. 5 first, started recording l) evidences of the parties. Defendants adduced their evidences and l thereaiter case was fixed for plaintifs evidence. Meanwhile, the petitioners, by filling application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule '14 of CPO sought amendment in the plaint seeking exemption Rom court fees. The above applications were rejected by the trial court vidc orders dated 09.12.2010 & 07.01.1, and vide order dated 21.01.2011 also closed their opportdnity to lead evidence on issue No. 5. Hence these petitions. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners x would submit: the trial court has exceeded in its jurisdiction ih dismissing petitioners applications and in closing their opportunities Ii to lead evidence. According to him, the petitioners have filed amendment application in order to show that petitioners are entitled a for exemption of court fees under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act and documents were also filed to that eEect, and therefore, the trial court should not have rejected above applications. t On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit : the relevant issue at that time was whether suit was properly valued and accordingly proper court fee was paid or not. Whether,or not petitioners were able to 1 pay court fees was totally irrelevant‘at that time, and therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed petitioners application and has rightly closed petitioners opportunity..to lead their evidences on issue a No. 5. i my\A..,.2% 27a x Ta av-wee{ a w /n I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned. The relevant issue before the trial court was whether or not suit was properly valued and proper court fees was paid, therefore, for the g above purpose; neither amendment application nor the document J‘ filed by the petitioners at that time was relevant, and in that View of i the matter, the trial court has not committed any irregularity in taking documents on record. So far as order of trial court, by which petitioner’s opportunity to lead their evidence on issue No. 5 was closed, is concerned, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners should have given ativ least one opportunity to lead their evidence on issue No. 5 and the respondents should have been compensated by imposing reasonable ’ costs, and thus, order dated 21.01.2011 suders from jurisdictional irregularity. The same deserves to be and hereby set aside For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, WP (227) No, 269/11 is dismissed and WP(227) No. 1076/11 is allowed to the above extent. The trial court is directed to give at least one opportunity to thei petitioners to lead their evidence with regard to issue No. 5 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/» payable to the respondents, and thereaher shall decide issue No. 5 expeditiously in accordance with law on its own merits. No order asto costs. ‘1 Sd/. n N.K. Agarwal , . l A Saba yf’ dismissing petitioners, application for amendment as well as for ,w“