5 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t ^ /09fS.B.) 1. Kailash kumar S/o. Late ^ C.R.No. APPLICANTS ^ Devishai Aged about 54 Year 2. Mukesh kumar S/o. Late ^1? .•^^ ^ \0^'(y^ /^ Devishai Aged about 42 Year ^* ^v»^ ^^..^ ^ ^^A'- ^ 3. Abhishak (Minor) S/o. Kailash Agarwal Aged about 16 Year, Through legal Garugeane, Mother- Kirandavi W/o Kailash Agarwal 4,. Ghasiram S/o. Late Chandulal R/o all- Baradwar, Tah.- Sakti, Distt.- Janjagir-Champa (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.1 TO 4) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS A 5 ^2 > 3^ Lakhan Lal S/o.Chandu Lal aged about -65 year, Caste - Agrawal, R/o.- Baradwar, Tahsil - Sakti, Distt. - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (PLANTIFF) Subhash Agrawal S/o. Devi Sai, aged about-50 year Umesh Agrawal S/o. Devi Sai, aged about-45 year Baijnath Agrawal S/o. Chandu Lal, aged -74 year -4 ^ ^ ; 5. 5 7. Ramnand Agrawal S/o. Chandu Lal, aged about-71 year N.A.No. 02 to 05 residence Agroha Marg Korba Tahsil & Distt.-Korba (C.G.) Jagadish Bai W/o. Ghanshyam, R/o. Sarawani, Tahsil-Sakti, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through-Collector Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (DEFBNDANT N0. 5 to 10) REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 READ WITH 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE COED 4;- t HI6H COURT Of CHMATTIS@ARH AT BIS-ASPUR APPLICANTS NON- APPLICANTS C.R. No.79 of 2009 Kaiiash Kumar & others Versus Lakhan bst & others. REVISION UNDER SECTCON 115 READ WITH 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE fSsnale Bench: Hon'bl®Mr. N.JC. Aaarwaj. J.) Present : 5hri Vineet Kymar Pandey,coynse!for the appjicants, Ms. Sharmiia Sin9hdi,counselfornon-appHcant No.l. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, courisel for non-applicants No.2 to6. Shri Sanjeev Kumar A&mwal, P.L, for the State, QRALrORDER) (Passed on i4th day of December. 2009) Heard. " • 2. Learned counsei appearing for the applicants has preferred this revjsion against the part of order impugned by which the objection^ regarding payment of Court fees has been rejected by the trial Court, 3, Shri Pandey, iearned counse! appearing for the applicQnts would sufamit that the house propert^ which is abo part of suit propert/ has to be valued and Court fees has to be paid therefor but the non-appjicant/plaintiff did not do so and, therefore, the r^jection of the apptication preferred by the petstioner on thj^ count js without juri^diction and the order to that exfent deserves to be quashed. l? /.y i^ ^ \ 4, Per contra, learned counseiappearing for non-cxppiicc^t No,l supported the order and submitted that the order has rightly been passed, 5, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusecl the order impugn^d, 7, A bare perusal of plaint (Annexure A-2) would revea! that the suit propert/ also includes the housepropert^ which has not been valued at ali by Ifie non-applicant NoJ/plaintjff, Therefore, the iearned Trial Court.went wronQ'in dismissing. .the.appiicants' appJication'on;-this coun.t It is trite law that.the .pidntlff has to value the suit in accordance with.the reiief ciaimed, ^hich has not done by the piaJntiff.In this case, 8< In the resu!t, the order impugned passed by the tria! Court to that extent is set aside and it is directed that the trlal Court perrnit the'non-appijcant s^lo, l/pJaintiff to value the suit for the purpose of reiief clalmcd over the house property and t^ pay the Court fees in accardance with iaw ypon the said relief and the trial Court shali thereafter, proceed to dcclde the' suit in accordance wifn' !aw< 9* The revjsion b partiy oliowed, No order as to costs. Kvr Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge