^- .^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ^te^.z.'T- WRITPETITION C^ No. S^\-^ /2009 (^ PETITIONER DEFENDANT ,.....^^ fc^f^.^;:.;...- ....-•"" ^?..^ ^<tf &Nt ^^y'" ^•••"" '^ Ramesh Kumar Rajput, S/o. Panche Lal Rajput; aged about 46 years; resident of Nangur; Tahsil - Jagdalpur; District Bastar (C.G.). ^'^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS N0. 1 TO 5 PLAINTIFFS 1. Smt. Fulan Devj Rajput, W/o. Late Kishori Lal; aged about 46 years. 2. Ku. Kiran Kumari Rajput, D/o. Late Kishori Lal; aged about 28 years. 3. Vinod Kumar Rajput, S/o. Late Kishori Lal; a^ed about 27 years. 4. Manoj Kumar Rajput, S/o. Late Kishori Lal; aged about 25 years. ^•'' 5. Ashok Kumar Rajput, S/o. Late Kishori Lal; aged about 23 years. All resident of Village Nangur; Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 6. State of Chhattisgarh; through Coltecto(-, Bastar; District Office at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. RESPONDENT DEFENDANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition ru/A 227) No.5913 of2009 PETITIONER Defendant ResDondents No.1 to 5: Plaintiffe -Versus- Ramesh Kumar Rajput Smt. Fulan Devi Rajput and others Present: Shri R.N. Jha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, counsel for respondente No. 1 to5. Shn Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. Sinate Bench: Hon^bte Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra* J. ORALORDER (15-3-2010) 1. The petitioner/defendant has called in question the legaljty, vatidity and proprtety of the order dated 26-8-2009 passed by the appellat^ Court allowing^ the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal preferred by.the respondents/ plaintiffe chaltenging the order passed by the trial Court on 22-t2-2007 retyrning the plaint for its presentation before the competent Court. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 5 have preferred a suit (Annexure-P/2} claiming possession and injunction. The case of the plaintiffe is that the suit land whfoh bears an area of 34 decimal having 9 rooms was handed over to the defendants about.10years back at the requestof the defendants as they had come to the village from another State find had no place to take shelter, however, now the plaintiffe require the sidt land/rooms as their family has expanded and that the defendants were served with^a legal notice dated 24-1-2006, but in spite of that the defendants had not handed over the vacant possession. The suit was valued at Rs.5/- i.e. 20 times of the land revenue for possession and Rs.1,0007- for Injynction. 3. White considering additional issue Nos.7 and 8, the trtal Court passed the order dated 22-12-2007 (Annexure-P/6) and directed the plaintlffe to value thesuit properiy and present it before the Gourt havlngjtirisdtetipn, and jthus, the plaint was retumed under Order 7 Rute 10 ofthe CPC. ^ 4. The miscellanepus appeal preferred by the plaintlffe has been al!owed;by the appellate Court and the order passed by the trial Court has been set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the prder passed by the trial Court was a reasoned order and that the firet appellate Court should not have interfered wjth the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Per cpntra, learned counsel for the respondents/plafritif^ subniiittedthat the appellate Court has not committed any error @f JuriscttetioriwCiite allowjng the appeal and no jnterference is calted for. 7. The appellate Court has observed, whteh appeare to be justified alsq on pemsal ofthe plaint, thatthe case ofthe plaintiff te based upon license." 8. In the case of Milka Singh and others Vs.Dtenaand othcars {AIR 1964 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 99 (V 51 C 35)}, the Division Benott (S.Murtaza Fazl Ali and Janki Nath Bhat, JJ) ofthe Jammu and Kashmir Hlgh Cpurt has held in paragraph-9 thus:- "From a careful consideration of all the circumstances mentioned by us above, the follcwing proposKions emerge:- ' 1. That a suit for an injunction simplteiter against a licensee whose license has been terminated is maintainable. " -^ - ^. r" ii ^ -~ ^/'/ ":fc!^ £^ ^^t) 2. That Section 7 (iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act clearly applies to such a sutt and the plaintiff is given an pption pf putting any valuation that he Bkes and the,- | court-fee has to be paid on such valuation. 3. That where a Iteenser approaches thtf court fbr an injunction within areasonabte tlme after the Iteence rs terminated. he is entitled to an injunction. On the other hand, if the licenser causes huge delay, the court may refuse the discretion togrant an injunction on the' ground that the licenser had not beeRdiligent'and iri that case, the licenser will have to bring a suit for possession whfoh will be governed by Scction7 (^) of the Court Fees Act." 9. In the present case, a legal notice twminating the license and askingthe defendants to vacate possession was issued on 24-1-2006 and the suit has been fited on 24-7-2006. Applying the principles laid down by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, this Court finds that in the present case the Iteenser has approached the Court for an injunction within a reasonable time after the Hcense is tesrminated, theretore, he is free to v value his suit for injunction under Section 7 (iv)(d) of the Court Feeis Act ' to obtain possession pf the lioensed premises. Though the plalntifis j have ateo valued.the plaint separately for possession at 20 times ol the ,; land revenue, yet applying the law lald down bythe Jammu and Kashmlr High Court, this Court is satisfled fhat the plalnt is properiy valued. tO.The order passed by the appellate Ceurt does not call for ^enyr. interference in this petition under Arttote 227 ofthe Constitution of India.' The petition faite and is.hereby dismissed. Barve Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge