^•i^-iwV-twt^Mrti1^^^? ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ INTHEHIGHCOURTSOFCHHATTISGARH AT:BltASI>Ull W.P. 1 No. 5-3 OF 2008 PETITIONER: ^.^s-^ °-5-(7^S^""^ ^W5^ \^ .%' ,u^ RESPONDENTS: Radhe Shyam Uke, aged 65 years, son of late Shri Sitaram Uke, resident of Magarpara, Bilaspur, tehsil & distnct Bilaspur (C.G.). (Plaintiff) VERSUS ^ :...——:,:1 ^ , : : 1. Syed Kajim Ali, aged 32 years, son of Shri Syed Imam Ali, resident of Masaliganj, ^ Baaspur(C.G.) 2. Sanjay Uke, aged 33 years, son of not- ^ Y' known, resident of Magarpara Bilaspur, at i^' ^j, _ present address- Swati Sweets, Maliamaya f^- YS^^ Qb^wk, Sarka^ and districtBilaspUr(C.G.) 3. State 6f Chllattisgarh, through the District CoUector, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). (Defendants) WRIT PETITION/APPLICATtON UNDER ARTIGLE 227 OF THE CONSTlTUTION OF INDI^ FOR ISSCANGEOFStJItABtEWRrFOF^ERTlORARY. ORDER. DHtECTION UNDER THE^^^^^P StJPEgINTENDENCE.. • ,:.' : ;.'; :' ' !: ;. ; ^ ^K-- ^ ^7 XI-HC—78 *<MCTI «>*<l<t> 3^?'siFIRT!r, atilwre, T^oi'My >-6c3 t-4b. fiO/^ "^200 '>.) sn^r •'ra^ ('<pf3^?) an^i^ifnw WII SIT^I »*<iq> ^K-- TOiiwsft^ •si^i SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICB N.ll!;. AGARWAL Shri Somiiath Vermi Shri Rajeev Shrwasl Ku. Sangeeta MishK i, Advocate, for fhe petitioner. java, Adv., for the respondent No. 1. i, Paxiel Lawyer, for the State. /plampffb The petitioner/plaui) 16-11-2007 passed] Judge, Bilaspur ia pieliinisiary issue and directiag him t^ fhis petition. Brieffacts necessanl plaiatiffinstituted a the relief of possession after suit for the purpos^ 1,50,000/- for the i the reliefofpossessic >eiag ^grieved By the order dated by leamed 1st Additional Distnct ;ivil Suit No. 3-A/2007 decidmg the re^ardiug court fee agaiD.st the plaiatiff pay proper coiut fee, has preferred The question of respondents; a pi and after heaiing bi that advalorum cour relief of possessi( 'bllfrt'fl-f W?ff 4 fetzt <fa«$l< ^aifirosfi^ii declaTslfion denl.olition fer the present petition are that fhe ^uit against the respondents claimiag over the suit land aad for its of superstructure, valued fhe of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. ilief otdeclaration, at Rs. 600/- for ^n and paid the court fee accordiagly. court fee was assailed by the sliminaiy issue was framed ij>th the parties, the trial Court held •(: fee ought to Iiave been paidifor fhe )n on the valuatjpn put forth 1 t ^ ^ M-HC—78 «mcil'iblKh 3ST «41'i|l<>f^, gttl'M'ls, fqciwy ^ co^' ^ M ^.^^..^...................................^^^QQ sn^i ^T R(-)i<* ^8TT 3T^Tfft*liq> sn^n^? ('^3^1) T TOTOR ^lfttl 311^1 -2- 6. by the the for pay |the relief of declaration aad directed Ipie court fee accordingly. 5. Shri Soninafa Vera^a, leamed counsel for the petitioner, would subraif th possession claimed and the suit would *ii[<'i<fl-i w^vS 4^Q tF'i<«;i< ^Taffinail^n 'at the reliefs of declaratioii and by fhe plaintiff ia the instant suit are iadependent to eacpi other aad the reUef of possession is not the consequeQ^al relief flowing froai the declaratory relief and caa be cl^iined independeiitly of the declaratioii be goveraed by Section 7(ivj(d) read wifh Schedule II add Article 17 of the Court Act and not luider Section 7(iv)(j;) of the Court fees Act, and therefore, the court fee has |beea properly afBxed and the order pourt is iUegaI and deserves to be set pajeev Shrivastava, learaed couasel ^spondent No. 1 supported the order |the oider passed by the trial Court is jrinciples of law aad deserves fo be (1 coimsel for the pardes and perused passed by the trial aside. Per contra, Shri appearing for fhe r| aad subinitted tbati based on souiid p upheld. I have heard leamei the record. iii ^-s®|.. t f.. / ' 3,..i-,rf/XI-HG—78 ^ HWWI a>*1|t|> ^s?^li-'41cl''<,®tt'<1'"°»^('"'M1< ^,();fc^Mo. fcg/^ ^.-..^....^..^..............^.................^^gg 3TI^I W k-tt* ?TSff 3TI^?T spllf^ (i'1/ STI^r ia«n('jqIs'i'i'T) ?niIW ^lfef 311^1 7- 8. As per Section 7(v) has to be valued f gardeas accordins Indfaputably, the plaiatiff himself at advalonun court valuatioii of the su himself. t?f the Court Fees Act, 1870, the suit }3r possession of lands, houses and to the value of subject niatter. sifiit property has been valued by the Rs. 1,50,000/- and, therefore, the f^e is required to be paid on the (t property put forth by the plaintiff ao In view ofthe above,| perfectly legal aad settled pnnciples of| supervisoiy jurisdi|:tioxi Constitution of Indi4 with tfae order cases where writ large on fhe fai( present case. pqss^d perveis^ty 10. In view of the above disinissed aad is heil ch!^d4l'1 'HFR'ff ^f f^sl' <f^(t$i< ^; affin SII^ST the order passed by the trial Court is fault caa be found in it. It is weU pbw that ttus Court, ia exercise ofits uiider Article 227 of the , sliould refi-ain itself fi-oiu iaterfering by the Court below except in such ity, iUegality or jurisdictional error is ;e of the record, which is not in the discussion, the petition is liable to be eby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge