IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH i AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. Rl^ /2008 AEPLICANTS 1J- Ram Kripal Agrawal, Aged about 4^ ^efendant No. 1 & 2 ^ years, S/o. Late Jhumuklal Agrawal, ®c r.n' ...^' <,M\ - J^ ,<A'"" 2]/ Shiv Kripal Agrawal, Aged about 38 J o;b.»<t ' ^-^ years, S/o. Late Jhumuklal Agrawal, ^^^y Both above R/o. Hatari Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) YERSUS Than Singh Chandrakar, Aged about 40 years, S/o. Narsingh Prasad Chandrakar, 2] , Khemraj Chandrakar, Aged about 33 years, S/o. Narsingh Prasad Chandrakar, C,<1 ,<i-'t RESPONDENTS ^; ^FLAINTIFFS ^ 3] /Sukesh Kumar Chandrakar, Aged about 24 years, S/o. Narsingh Prasad Chandrakar, A)l above R/o. village Bhathagaon, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Smt. Pratibha Agrawal, Aged about 45 ..'-'' years, W/o. Shri Santosh Agrawal, R/o. Main Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) ...Defenclant no. 3(a) 5-] Smt. Nirmala Agrawal, Aged about 40 <^' <L^ years, W/o. Shri Arun Agrawal (Beldar Seoni Wale) R/o. Main Road, Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (CG) .. .Defendant no. 3(b) REVISION UNDER SECTIQN 115 QF CQDE QF CIYIL PROCEDURE -.,,-%• !fff' Smt. Subhadra Chandrakar, aged about 51 years, Wd/o late Than Singh Chandrakar. Ashish Chandrakar, aged about 26 years, S/o late Than Singh Chandrakar. Anil Chandrakar, aged about 24 years, S/o late Than Singh Chandrakar. All above R/o. Chandrakar Krishi Farm, Kesari Bagicha Road, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.j Smt. Bhumika Chandrakar, D/o late Than Singh Chandrakar, aged about 27 years, W/o Bharat, Chandrakar, R/o village Arand, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) Smt. Anita Chandrakar, D/o late Than Singh Chandrakar, aged about 24 years, W/o Sanjay Chandrakar, R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ^ /" ,^sit"^v: ~%.^e/^~ '•^.E^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT|SGAP,H,ATBJI CIVIL REVISION No. 196 OF 200S Ram Krjpal A.arawa! & another Defendant No. 1 & 2. Smt. Subhadra Chandrakar & others REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 1 15^ QFTHE_COD= OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 2. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Anant Kumar Bajpai with Shri SS Rajpuf, Ac resDondent. ates for •e-isri ^Ln ;sed OR 07/09/2011) Legality and propriety ofthe order dated 21.11.2008, pa-ssed by the Xth Addl. District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2008 js under assail in thls revision. The facts givlng rise to this revislon are: the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit seeking relief of rectification of sale-deed, possession and damages. Suit was valued at Rs. 21,61 4/- and accordingly court fees was paid. Later on amendment application was filed by the plaintiffs on 11.08.2003 claiming a'amages @ 21,000/- per annum. The trial court, instead of deciding the amendment application, holding, above amendment if aKowed would bar its pecuniary jurisdidion, returned the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for its fiilng in the proper court. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the same suit before the court of Add!. District Judge. In the year 2008, amendment application fjled by respondent before trial court was allowed bv the court of Addl. District Judge. "^\ &< 3. At this stage, by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with' Section 151 of CPC, the defendants/applicants herein sought rejection of plaint inter alia on the ground : suit valued at Rs. 21,614/- is triable by Civil Judge, Class-D and not by Addl. District Judge. 4. Learned Addl. District Judge heid : suit was returned by the tria! court having found proposed amendment wil! bar its pecuniary jurisdiction; suit has been valued at Rs. 21,614/- and accordingly court fee has been paid by the respondent/plaintiff; the amount of future damages claimed by way of amendment is uncertain and at the time of decision the amount of court fees can be recovered; and dismissed the applicant's applteatlon. 5. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit : the trial court Instead of deciding whether or not court of Addl. District Judp.e can decide the suit valued at Rs. 21,614/-, ha.s decided sufflciency or otherwise of the court fees paid by the respondenVplaint'ff, and themfore, the order impugned is patentiy illegal. 6. Shri Anant Bajpai and Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the respondents also supported the contention rgised by Shrj Paranjpe and submitted : order of return of plaint passed by Civi! Judge Class II vide order dated 01.11.2004 itself was bad because the plaintiffs had not prayed for any relief of damages for the period before filing of suit and there is no necessity to value future damages claimed and in-fact instant suit is triab!e by Civi! Judae Class II. 7. 8. t have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. A bare perusal of amendment app!lcation filed by the plaintiff wou.id reveal future damages were ciaimed by way of amendment upon which neither valuation of the su'rt was required to be altered nor additional court fees was necessary, therefore, it appears that the trial court has committed error in returning the plaint, Court of Addl. District Judge has also committed the same error in hoiding th.e suit within its pecuniary jurisdiction. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision is ailowed, Order impugned dated 21.11.2008, being patently il!egai, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first appeilate court to decide the application filed by the appiicants under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of CPC on its own merits in accordance with 10. !aw keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.KAgarwaI . Judge Sahu