A^& •iy.\ LT r^. f^MEHsTTl^.fS^.^ E i; i^i^^Sj^iXg E .B*°fc g E-3^£ ii^T-s ^rar^s rij"^^g-£»¥ iM'l ititio Ramesh Kumar Chhabra, S/o Omprakash Chhabra, Aged about 47 years, R/o Teiephone Exchan.ge Road, Biiaspur Tahsil & District /r^ f^-. DHi^teUUi ^^1-3 ,'CDO) IC Tl.S;<S' N'* 2 Baldev Krishna, aged about 50 years Subhash Charidra, Aged about 43 vears ', Aged about 40 Rajendra vears 4 Narsndra Kumar, Aged at years Resp No.1 to 4 All S/o Late Shri Malikram Chhabra, R/o iilaspur, Tahsll & District Bilaspur /^n\ ^Vr^i 5 Anoop Kumar S/o Munshiram Aged about 40 vears 6 Muns'niram S/o L about 62 years .16 J8€|3ir 7 Rajesh Kumar S/o Charanjit, aged about 40 years Charanjit Chhabra S/o Late Shri Jagatram, aged about 58 years 9 Karan Chhabra S/o Late Shri Rajnish Kumar Chhabra, Aged about 5 years minor throu.qh Guardian Mother Smt Rashmi Chhabra Widow of Late Rainish Chhabrs 10 Rashmi Chhabra W/o Late Rajnish ;hhabra, Aged about 30 years "~"'-ai^^^ ^ s-£w 11 Tiiakraj Chhabra S/o Late Jagtram Chhabra, Aged about 55 years 12 Pawan Kumar Chhabra S/o Lafe iriai Chhabra, Aged about 2i 1 years Smt Si Al/^.iif-^^^1 ^^^b ^!r **L Fl^. r^< JHQ^HS^I a-nn^pis, M.yj Respondents No.5 to 13 all R/( Teiipara Bilaspur Tahsi! & Distric O E i CS.Sy U i t i-if' s*5 ^^l^rran: r^fiMri^ .^n'^ffasii itr^^I&r ^Htss ^^T ^'lfl^ riassH zA?lfl E¥S-^!:zy^ 'v^'^ t? s's E& ^-aEiS-»"g^C;££l£^."ta a-Si-S^a 6'a.'s.S.a'^ ...J ^' e_. S .B,'^^..S -£»ea:^'?¥^^i £'?* rff^ dl^L^-^ ^^ S^S ^% ^ ^\ ^^.^ ^ Si^ ^t ^ s^bt flrf^ ^?^ ^<ii S l&^Nh ^^S^ sa ssci'on z n< OT itie ApRsa' 10 uivisi Present: Shri Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the appellai llinifSMFMT ••^•^IL/'^Si'i^'iih^i'V ifth The foilovrfing judgment of the Court was passed by Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appeliant is heard on admission. 2) Appeilant -Ramesh Kumar Ch'nabra has filed this writ appeal •^nairist th?s imniinnpifi nrfipr dsitpd 0/? 07 90HR n^%?2.p( iui^e 1*4 tl 3 I-F i. LS st«f ii t ttufu3yi l^/'Uj t^'a ^-i'./s t-as^tl.t-i^i.a \^£-..\^s^.s^\j\»"i^f ^^lt^-i^-^t'wl ia V.P.No.565/2( 3) AppeSIant - Ramesh Klimar Chhabra fiied the writ petition against the order dated 20.09.2005, passed by .9!h Clvil Judge, Ciass-!!, Biiaspur in Civi! Suit No.128-A/2004. 4) Appellant - Ramesh Kumar Chhabra instituted a civil suit for partitiori of a ptot measuring 2400 sq.ft., claiming 1/6 share. The i.pllsnt/ nl?ilnt;ff Th? 3 11,1 j I ^ 1 ^ i^ triai Court vide order dated 20.09.2005 held that the piaintiff was required to pay ad valorem Court fees and as such the appellant / pSaintiff was direded to deposit deficEt Court fees by next date i.e. ?Q 1 n"nn?; 1 y,4^.Wt^flJ< 5} As ths learned Singie Judge dld not find any jurisdictional Tlaw or materiai irreguiarity in the order passed by the trial Court, the appellant's writ pet'rtion was dismissed vide order dated IQ ^n^ U^-.U^-.^.^JUU. 5) !n a suit for partition, ad valorem Court fees is required to be pa'd. 7) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court dated 20.09.2005 and the impugned order whereby the appeilant's writ petition was dismissed. 3) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this 'intra Courtappsst 9) The writ appeai, therefore, Is liabie to be dismissed and is "eby dismissed summariiy Sd/- Chief Justice Sffl^ BJW S1NHA Judge f?