^ s' llnila Bencli IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR- Revisionist / Defendant # 4 Non - Applicants / Plaintiff # 1 to 10 & Defendant # 1 to 3 ,^ ^^^ ^y^^ ^ \^ ^x. J^l of 2011 ^ Smt. Parvinder Kaur, 32 Yrs. W/o Jasbir Singh Bagga, Station Road, Mahasamund Versus k Dilip Kumar Mahobia, 50 Yrs. L Khilavan @ Munna Mahobia, 2&2 S/o Late Paimalal Mahobia and R/o New Indira Market Ward # 10, Mahasamund ^ Narendra Kumar Mahobia, 5^ >?. k"0nkar Mahobia, 42 Yrs., >. Vishesh Mahobia, 40 Yrs., 6. Krishna Kumar Mahobia, 38 Y ^JZ. Bhuneshwar Mahobia, 36 Yrs., 3to7 S/o Late Pannalal Mahobia 8. Smt. Vimalabai, 70 Yrs., . Wd./o Late Pannalal Mahobia 3jo_8R/oVill.Tusda, Teh. & Distt. Mahasamund ^9. Rekhabai, 48 Yrs., W/o Santosh Pandey & D/o Late Pannalal Mahobia ^O.Dulari Bai, 44 Yrs, W/o Buchchu Mahobia 96'10 R/o Lauji, Balaghat (MP) ^4'l.Girdhar Lal, 38 Yrs., S/o Shri Sundarlal Mahobia, R/o Imlibhata, Mahasamund'\.^ l^' ^ IZVinod Kumar, 36 Yrs., S/o Shri Sundarlal Mahobia, R/o Vithoba Talkies, Nera Mishra Painter/s Residence, Teh. & Distt. Mahasamund ^ ,13.8mt. Prabha Kumari Mahobia, 28 Yrs., D/o Shri Sundarlal Mahobia, W/o Hemant Kumar Mahobia, Caste-Barai, Baraipara, Teh. & Distt. Durg BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER DATED 18/04/2011 PASSED IN CS -6 A/ 2010 BY THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE MAHASAMUND. ORDER ATTACHED ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BiLASPUR Cjvll Revision No. 107 of 2011 APPLICANT Smt. Parvinder Kaur Versus NON-APPLiCANTS Dilip Kumar Mahobia & others. CiVIL REVISON UNDER SECTSON 115 THE CODE OF CIViL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble JVIr. N.K. Aaarvvai. J.) Present : Mr. Raja Sharma, counssl for the appiicant. QRAL_QRD.ER. (28.09.2011) Heard on admlsslon. 1. instant civi! revlsion Is directed against the order dated 18.4.2011 passed by DlstrictJudge, Mahasamund in Civil Sujt No.5- A/2010 vvhersby snd whereunder the appiicatlon preferred by the appllcant under Order 7 Ruie 11 of the Code of Civll Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been dismissed. 2. I have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the order impugned jnc!udlny copy of piaint, 3. Pialntiff filed suit for deciaration that sa!e deed dated 09.09.2008 is ineffective and not binding upon hlm and also for declaration of hjs tltie over the property prescribed In Schedule A of the piaint.As per piajnt averment, piaintiff is In possesslon over the sult property. Admlttediy, piaintiffwas not a party to above sale deed. 4. Where the piaintiff is not a party to saie deed, aiso in possession of the suit property, he can sue for declaratlon slmplicitor and can clajm to pay court fees under any of the ciauses ofArticie 17 ScheduSe 2 ofthe Court Fee Act, 1870. 5. In vlevv' of above, the plalntiff vvas not required to pay ad v&loram court fees on the basis of vaiue of saie deed and the trial Court has rightiy' rejected the appilcant's appjicatlon. -sr\ L/L ^ l^ , 6. !n vjew' of foregoing dlscussion, since the trial Court has not commjtted any jurisdjctional jileyality whiie passlng the order impugned, civ'ii revision falte and js hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge