IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP CIVIL REVISION N0. l^ 2^0F 2011 t i APPLICANTS DEFENDANTS 1. Smt. Pushpa Dey, wife of Late Shri Arun Kumar, aged about 70 years 2. Utsav Dey, son of Late Shri Arun Kumar, aged about 50 years 3. Utpal Dey, son of Late Shri Arun Kumar, aged about 46 years .^: ..* ^^?^ ^ All are resident of Mission Hospital ^-^'"/' Road, Old Law College, Bilaspur, T.S^ £>».^"•"^ iu": ^y' Tehsil and Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur, ^^ -^^ <^ RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS VERSUS 1. Sanjay Dey, son of Late Shri Satyendra Nath Dey, aged about 61 years 2. Sutapa Dey, son of Late Shri Sujai Dey, aged about 57 years 3. Somik Dey, son of Late Shri Sujai Dey, aged about 32 years Both are resident of 5 Austagan Lane, Kolkatta, West Bengal Through the Power of Attorney holder, Shri Deepak Khandelwal,son of Shri Prabhudayal Khandelwal, aged about 27 years, resident of Deep Hotel, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF TH^CODE^OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION NQ. 132 OF 2011 APPLJCANTS Defendants RESPONDENTS Plajntiffs Smt. Pushpa Dey & others VERSUS Sanjay Dey & others CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the applicants. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passedon 18/11/2011) 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 26.09.201 1, passed by the Addl. Judge to the Ist Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 113-A/11, whereby and whereunder the appiicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC has been dismissed, is under assail in the instant revision. 2. Facts briefly stated are: non applicants/plaintiffs instituted a suit against the applicants daiming relief of declaration, partition and permanent injunction with regard to suit land. 3. The applicants, by filing application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC sought return of plaint inter alia on the ground suit is under valued and proper court fees has not been paid. According to the applicants, suit is not agricultural land. 4. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the trial court rejected the applicant's application holding at this stage for the purpose of court fees and valuation of the suit only plaint averments have to be seen. As per plaint averment, plaintiffs/respondents are in possession of the suit property, suit land is revenue paying estate and therefore prima-facie suit is properly vatued and proper court fees has been paid. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicantswould submit the suit is required to be valued as per its market value and accordingly ad-valorem court fees is required to paid and the court below has erred in rejecting applicants' application. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned and documents filed in the revision. 7. It is well settled that the question of court fees must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint. In the present case, the plaintiffs have valued their claim for declaration at Rs. 600/- and fixed court fees has been paid, for partition at Rs. 100/- since the suit land is revenue paying estate, and for permanent injunction at Rs. 600/-. Plaint allegations are clear and unambiguous in this aspect of the matter. Therefore, a harmonious construction of paragraphs (v) and (vi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, will show that the legislature intended that market value of revenue paying land for both the clauses will be the same i.e. 20 times the land revenue as provided under clause (v), therefore, at this stage, the order passed by the court below cannot be found fault with. ^IN<»" 8. The Supreme Court in case of Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla1 has held that the question of court fee is primarily the question between the plaintiff and the State. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint. The court fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of nature. 9. For the forgoing reasons, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge AIR 1961 SC 1299