^iSW^' IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision N0. \ Vo OF 2011 APPLICANT DEFENDANT No. 2 NON-APPLICANTS ^o^ ^o.' Shiv Shankar Tiwari, S/o Sanktha Prasad Tiwari, aged about 70 years, Caste- Brarahan, R/o Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. Ashish Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Raghvendra Pandey, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Adhbhar, Tahsil Pendra, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) PLAINTIFF 2. Bhupat Yadav, S/o Ragghu Yadav, aged about 80 years, Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Adhbhar, Tahsil Pendra, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) DEFENDANTNO. 1 CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF 3°%^^- ,,.<^^.^\^....f"' . ^^\ ^ • ^,***' I'*' ^^o'i;:..-<^\') '9^^<7^^' \-^'""" CODE OF CWIL PROCEDURE __B^il^or << ^ ^>, APPLICANT ClvlS Revjsion No. 110 of 2011 Shiv Shankar Tlwari DefendantNo,2 JMOhi-APPLSCANTS Versus AshJsh Kumar Pandey & another. .C|V!L REVISOM UISSDER SECT30M 115 THE OF C!VU, PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble I^r. N.K. AaarwaS. J.) Present : Mr. H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate v/lth Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, counsei for the appijcant. ORAL (29.Q9.2011) Heard on admission. 1. Instant clvii revision is directcd against the order dated 02.09,2011 passed by Addltional District Judge, Pendra Road, Distt. Biiaspur in Cjvil Suit No.39-A/2011 whereby and whereunder the appjication preferred by the appllcant under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of the Code of CM! Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been rejected. 2. By filing application under Order 7 Ru!e 11 of the Code the applicant ralsed tvy'o objections; (1) t'ne suit is filed on the basis of unregistered agreement and is not maintainabie; and (11) although the pialntiff ciaimed reiief of declaratjon of deed In question as void but djd not pay any court fees. 3. Learned trial Court heSd: whether or not the agreement in questjon Is admisslbie in evldence, it csnnot be declded at this stage; dlrected pialntiff for payment of court fees at Rs.500/- Vv'lthln seven days and disposed ofthe petltion. 4, Shri H,B. Agrawa!, iearned Sr. Advocate vvith Smt. Meera Jaisvv'ai, counse! for the applicant vvouid submit: instead of rejectlng the pialnt, the triai Court has directed the piaintiff to pay court fees whlch is contrary to the isvv and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. '^ .<f—^1 i ^^-^ j r .i ^... "^r'y ...^ "^S^^i^:%s' '^J- .. 5. i have heard counsel for the appilcant and perused the materia! avaiiabie on record Inciudlng order Impugned. 6. As per Under Order 7 Rute 11 of the Code, the piaint cannot be rejected for want of payment of court fee yv'ithout first giving opportunlty to the plalntjff and the same has been done by the trial court. Therefore, order Impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictiona! error. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision being wjthout substance is !labie to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge