HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitian {Art227} No.1 059 of 2Q‘E1 CNrii Petition under Afticie 227 of the Constitution of lndia} MrPrafuii Bharat, counsei for the petitioner. r.B.P.Sharma, ccunsel for respondents N. and 2. MrSumit Jhanw'ar, Panel Lawyer for {espondent No.3/Staie. (SB: Hcn’bie Mi. T.. Shanna, J.) P DRDER {ORAL} (1 9-7—201 1) 1. By his petition under Articie 227 cf the Constitution of indie te petitioner has hailenged the iegality and propety of te order dated 8.12.2010 (nnexure P12) passed by the Additional District Judg, South Easter, Dantewada in M.J‘C.i\io.1l2009, affirming the orer dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure P/1) psed by the 1g Civii Judge Clas-IL Dantewada in Civii Suit No.1AIO7. whereby the Civii Judge has directed the petitioner. to pay Court fees in accordanc with valuatio of the saie deed. i.e. transaction. , i hav heard ieamed counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned. copy of piaint, copy of Speciai Power of Attorney executed by te petitioner in favour of respondent No.1 and other documents. 3. From perusa‘i of Speciai Power of Attorney executed in favour of respondent No.1, order impued and copy of piaint, it appears that the present petitioner has executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.1 reieting to 5O acres of the land situated at Geedam and Gumada. Gut of property situated at Geedam and another viiiage Harem, respondent Not has executed saie deed in favor of respondent No.2, for which the petitioner has died civii suit for decia ration \ \ M o1 t h c ri h A e 0 d as s e n e h gn Petitioner Sheshma! Surana $lc Narsingmai P!a§ntiff Surana, 65 yeafs, Rio Geedam, DistDantewada-(QG) Versus Respcndents 1. Hastimai Surana‘ S!o Narsingmai Defendants Surana, 51 yrs, Ric Geedam, Bistt.Dantewada-(C.G.} 2. Paiwinder Singh, Sic Buta Singh Git! 41 years. Rio Sanjay Bazar, Giibada, Jagdaipur, Di§tLBastar—(C.G.) 3. Smte 9f C.G. Thmugh-Coliector, South * Bastar Dantewada P2, cf aforesaid bath the saie deeds as nuii and void with othe.’ {eiieisn By wag an appiication under arder 7 Ruie ’ii of the Code of Civii Procedme, respcndents No.1 and 2 have mentioned the vaiuation of suit property as Rs.3,2’i,500/— and suit med in the Court cf Civil Judge Ciass-ii was not within the competency of said Court. . Copy of plaint and Power of Attorney reveai that the petitioner has executed Speciai Power of Attorney reiating to the iand situated at Geedam and Gumada in favour of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 has aiso executed saie deed in favour of respondent No.2 relating to the iand situated at Haram. Sate deed executed by respondent NoM in favour of respondent No.2 reiating to the iand situated at Haram in which the present petitioner/plaintiff was not party to such sate deed, but sate.deed retating to the land situated at Geedam, the petitioner was party to sate deed, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner is required to pay ad-valorem court fees on aforesaid value and to amend the plaint. tn case, it is found that the aiieged valuation of the relief claimed exceeds the peculiar jurisdiction of the triai Court i.e. Civil Judge Ciass—il, then the petitioner/plaintiff is required to tiie appiication for amendment of the plaint along with required Court fees. in case. the triai Court found that if such amendment is aliowed, then jurisdiction of the Court woutd be ceased or the Court itseif submits the record of the suit along with amendment application and Court fees paid to the Court of District Judge for appropriate order or transfer to the Court having pecuitar and territoriat jurisdiction to tri the same in terms of Section 15(3) of the Chhattisgarh Cit/ii Courts Act, 1958. . With the aforesaid modihcation in the order impugned, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shaii compty with the aforesaid order within 30 days from today before the trial Court. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge