ft' €? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH C.R. N0. (^-^ /2006 ^ APPLICANT 6EFENDANT \^t ^ •y €^' '^!>'"" ^ RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF fKAWAL SINGH MARKANDE, Aged about 56 years, S/o. Balwant Singh markande R/o. Behind Vishwakarma Floor Mill Village-Shivpuri Jamul, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS /' RAM SINGH S/o. Hariwansh Singh Aged about 30 years R/o. Village Shivpuri Jamul, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ^^' CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI-HC-78 +11*1^1 Sh+lich 3^cT r^Nlcrt^, ^Tf1<rl41?, [s«ni<riy . ^.\?. \^b;0^ ^ 200 3TT^?r ^ra^? (y<^c«^r) ^TT^T^ilf^ri^ cTsrrw^Tsb^icb -:7/ Ah, ^. 0| i^RTr^TC ^cT 3:n^T /09/2006 Shri D.N. Prajapati couns^ Heard on the question of a^ The applicant has filed thi| the Code of Civil Procedure agai?t Second Civil Judge Class 1 Durg appiication preferred by the defer|dant has been rejected on the ground | suit and accordingly paid the court Learned counsel for the a the plaint the piaintiff has made plaint that there was an orai agr property between the plaintiff and Rs. 54,000/-was received by th< agreed total consideration of circumstances the plaintiff was re market value of the property i.e. vatued on the basis of monthly p and the Court below has summa the defendant by recording a finc support of the argument learn( Judgment of the Madhya Prades Chand Jain Vs. Chairman. MPE chi^Id41^ HiH^iT^teI^'<Ri^i< ^3:ri^T3TI^T for the applicant. imission. 3 revision petition under section 115 of ist the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by in Civi! Suit No. 97-A/2005 by which the under Order 7 Ruie 1 1 of the CPC that the piaintiff has properiy vaiued his fee. ^plicant submits that even according to >tipulation in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the sement with respect to the sale of the the defendant and accordingty a sum of plaintiff by way of advance out of the Rs. 1,03,000/- and in the aforesaid quirecj to value the suit according to the 1,03,000. However, the piaint has been snt which is not in accordance with !aw •ily rejected the application preferred by ing that the plaint is properly valued. In |d counsel has cited the Fuli Bench |i High Court in the matter of Subhash ^_and_^thej^reported in 2001 (1) JU XI-HC-78 31T^fT ^)T f^-TW <TSTT3TI^Tsb^ich t-n^T^n sb+ii<*» 3^r ^i^id^, ^Tft^4!?, (G«rti<iy , C > ^ . \'2J^ /Ob W[ 200 3TT^?r ^ra^ (yit^^) ?^TTW^f?cTW^T —^L- 81 and in the matter of Dhira and^thers.reported in 2000(111 I have heard learned copnsei for the applicant and perused the piaint as weil as the impugned oijder. The plaintlff has pleadejj occupying the suit accommodati^n of Rs. 1,500/- and subsequentl them with respect to the saie of t|ie 1, 03,000/- ,and Rs. 54.000/- w( However, since the defendant di he got the suit accommodation was filed after giving due notice antl In the matter of Dhiraj assessed vaiue of the property suit was for canceliation of circumstances, the piaintiff wasj assessed by him. !n the case was fiied for the rellef of restrair^ eiectricity supply to his worksho^ Thus the facts of the ab< aitogether different. In this case tenant and the pieadings regardi accommodation has been super chNld4i-l WT?ff ^fe^ <Rt^K. ^3:rf^T3TI^T and others Vs. JVi/s Chordia Brothers ^INS 29 . in his plaint that the defendant was since October 2000 on a monthly rent |/ there was an orai agreement between :jie said property for a consideration of Rs. ^re received by him by way of advance. tl not pay the remaining consideration nor <|egistered in his name the suit for eviction the defendant. others (supra) it has been held that the |3y the plaintiff is to be seen. The above |the sate deed and in the aforesald Irequired to put the vaiue of the suit as of pubhash Chand Jain (supra) aiso the suit ?ng the defendant from disconnecting the 1 on account of defauit of electricity dues. ^ve fr.'vo cases cited by the applicant are |the suit is between the iandlord and the (ig the ora! evidence of the sale of the suit •fluously made by the plaintiff in the piaint XI-HC-78 ^n^T^T^Jcb <cT8TT3TR?[9bH|ch -! i^ +11+1^1?h+1ich T^T^TPTT^R, ^Tfl^41(o, fstcni^y cr.\?t:^?^J°k ^[200 3<l^l M5|cb ?^TTW ^rf?<T 3^?T —"S— and the same cannot be mad^ payment of court fee. !n the result, this court is infirmity in the impugned orderarl by this Court. Accordingly, th^ admission stage itself. ct)i<<I<n41ri ^TR^ft ff NT^1' <RI<^I< ^^Tf^TSn^T a basis for valuation of the suit and rf the opinion that there is no illegality or d the same does not require interference revision petition is dismissed at the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge