P f ZQL IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ICI NO.§O [Z— [2006 lS.Bl [DATE OF PRESENTATION 1 1.09.06] PETITIONER z— Smt. Jaswant Kaur Saluja, aged 50 years,(' Widow of Sardar Mangat Singh Saluja, Occupation — nothing, dependent, resident of Gurunanak Ward No. 9, Stationpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund [C.G.]. PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1] Talvinder Singh alias Raju, aged 28/ years, son of late Sardar Mangat Singh Saluja, business and agriculture. 2] Satpal Singh, aged 35 years son of .// late Sardar Mangat Sin h Saluja. Ravinder Kaur alias Gudiya, aged 21 / years, daughter of late Sardar Mangat Singh Saluja. 4] Iqbal kaur alias Bina, aged 19 years, c D/ o Late Sardar Mangat Singh Saluja. ‘ All are resident of Purana Bus Stand, Padampur— Gadphuljhar Road, Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund [C.G.]. 5] Smt. Gurudeep Kaur aged 30 years., D/o late ‘Sardar Mangat Singh Saluja, Wife of Sardar Paramjeet Singh Pahuja, resident of Sardar Cycle stores, near Gurudwara, Kawardha [Kabirdham] District , Kabirdharn [C.G]. 6] Smt. Preetpal Kaur, alias Pinki aged, 25 years, D/o late Sardar Mangat Singh Saluja, W/o Sardar Indrapal Singh Makkad, R/o Hani General Stores, Maulvi — Swami Chowk, Shahdol, District Shahdol [M.P.]. 3] 7] The State of Chhattisgarhf Through— The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund [C.G.]. DEFENDANTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION W ‘ OF INDIA I u, wean-Mg. 1W «my» m. a , J . .mm Ea 20° o w Vat) wo- gem/06: -"A-v‘mm(m) ‘mmm mmafwm ‘ '%?a'mm / V WWWW FS/95 11/2003 1,00,000. ‘\ \\ SB: HOE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. AGARWAL 28-8-2G09 Shx‘i Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Basant Dewaagan, Advocate appears on behalf on Shri Utkarsh Verma, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5. 2. With consent of the parties, the petition is heard Iinally. 3. Instant petition is iirected against the order dated 17-7- 2006 passed by the 11nd Additional District Judge, 64A/ 2005 whereby and whereunder petitioner under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act has been dismissed. Mahasamund in case the application filed by 4. Brief facts of the se are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for claration, partition and separate possession against the spondents before the Court below. Along with the suit,’ plaintiff also filed an application under Section 35 of th Court Fees Act claiming exemption from payment of court in pursuance of Notification F. Not 9-1-83-B-XXI, dated lst April, 1983 on the ground that the plaintiff’s yearly income is less than Rs. 6,000/-. Reply was iiled by the responde ts. Evidence was led by both the parties. . N e a e e e mm mzoo :amm(m) , Ammm ' . mm‘iffstam v *aiwqm , /- 5. Learned Court beiow vide impugned ordar dismiswd 1:116 appHcation‘ Hence this tition. 6. Shri Malay Ku patitioner would su dismissed the applicat Without going into the men‘ts of the application and Witho recording finding whether or not, the income of the plaintiif less than Rs. 6,000/— per annum and therefore, the order pas ed is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside. / Bhaduri, learn6d counsel for the t that learned Court beiow has 7. Per contra, Shri asant Dewangan, learned appearing for the respondents its that the order passed is well reasoned and deserved, be upheld. 8. I have heard learn d counsel for the parties and perused r 9. Nowhere it has. b n recorded by the Court below that Whether or not the p ner is entitled to claim exemption from payment of court fee in pursuance of the notification mentioned above and o 1y after mentioning some of the facts on merit, the applicat has been dismissed, which in the considered opinion of Court, is not in accordance with ’s (i WWWW FS/95—11/2oos 1,00,000. e m b i u i i s m e ‘ ‘o i W W ; W W $ J mm I I V mm(m) ‘ g 3 .x...‘...q..’.€.;.:"eil2oo V V. mm wm ~- "‘reaimm 9g- 1aW and learned trial C( passing the impugned or 10. Ther€fore, in my ordar deserves to be and remitted back to the tria own merits on the ap} Section 35 of the Com Fees Act after hearing both the parties. Since the mattt Court shall decide the m :r is old, it is expected that the trial 1 1. Thepetition is allo‘ ved. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge \ ,\ nurt has committed gross illegality in der. considered opinion, the impugned is hereby set aside and the matter is 1 Court to pass the order afresh on its ilication nled by the plaintiff under / atter expeditiously. WWWW—Fsws—l x /2008—1,00,ooo.