c ^ ,v IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fU/A 227) No. ^ /2011 PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS ^•••^l... ,..-•"' N'. .^s^\- <r>v^:.^\y »\- ./•". ^^-^' •»**•' s' • >"' "'^rf!/' RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS t^ 1] 2] •3] .4] 5] 6] 7] ^ 1] ^ 2] / ^ 3] 4] 5] Amal Kumar Mitra, S/o. late Anant Kumar Mitra, aged about 83 years, Ku. Niva Mitra, D/o. late Anant Kumar Mitra, aged about 79 years, Smt. Bithika Das, W/o. Animesh Das, aged about 77 years, Smt. Juthika Som, W/o. Amitav Som, aged about 75 years, Smt. Gitika Mitra, W/o. late Kalyan Mitra, aged about 68 years, Smt. Niti Ghosh, W/p. Shivnath Ghosh, aged about 65 years, Smt. Smriti Das, W/o. Nemai Das, aged about 62 years, All above R/o. Kolkata, West Bengal, through: their power of attorney holder - Mridul Kumar Vishwas, S/o. 'late M,K. Vishwas, aged about 52 years, R/o. Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Pranati Das, W/o. late Vimal Das, aged about 37 years, R/o. Badekanera Road, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) Shubhashish Sen Gupta, S/o. late Subhash Sen Gupta, aged about 62 years, Surjit Sen Gupta, S/o. late Subhash Sen Gupta, aged about 58 years, Sudhijit Sen Gupta, S/o. late Subhash Sen Gupta, agedabout 55 years, Sarvajeet Sen Gupta, S/o. late Subhash Sen Gupta, aged about 47 years, -.^y s^sg^ 3 ^ <" All above R/o. Kolkata, West Bengal. 6] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227t N0. 264 OF 2011 PETITIQNERS DEFENDANTS Amal Kumar Mitra and others. Versus Smt. Pranati Das and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SNDIA (Sina!e Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.6. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19th day of January, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 06-12-2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-ll, Kondagaon, District Bastar in Civil Suit No.l-A/2009 whereby the petitioners/plaintiffe are direeted to value the suit in accordance with its market value and pay the Court fees accordingly. 3. Learned counse! for the petitioners would submit: the property in question is revenue paying land and house constructed thereupon. The petitioners have properly valued the revenue paying land as per Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short 'the Court Fees Act'), but the learned Court betow has illegally directed to value the suit property according to its market value and to pay the Court Fees accordingly. 4. I have gone through the order impugned and copy of Annexure P-2. 5. As per para 22 of the plaint (Annexure P-2), the suit property is garden and house constructed thereupon. As per Section 7 (v) (e) of the Court Fees Act, where the subject matter ^ Kvr is a house or garden, such property is requiredto be vaiued according to market value ofthe house or garden. 6. In view of the above clear legat provision and in view of the fact, the property in dispute is garden and house constructed thereupon. The Trial Court has not committed any illegality in directing the petitioners to value their suit according to market vatue ofthe suit property. 7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itselffrom interferingwith the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ targe on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petltion being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby rejected. No order asto costs. Sd//- ' N.K.Agrawal Judge