N THE IGH OURT OF JUDICATURE AT BltASPUR (C.G.) W..( 227 No. $’ L! of 20H I H C P ) BETWEEN Gopol Mongwoni, aged about 48 years, S/o Late raja Ram Mangwoni, R/o Mcdhubon road, Doyolbondh, Tehsil & District Bilospur, Chhctfisgarh. AND Om Prakash Agrowcul aged abouf 47 ears, So Nihal Chand y / grawaL Ro Man Road, Baloda, Tehsil & District: Janjgir- Campa, hhaifisgarh. h C RSPONE EDNT WIT R PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : PETITIONER A / i v} HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra VVrit Petition (227) N0. 814/2011 Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (10.02.2011) Heard. (2) In a suit for specific performance of contract the learned Trial Court has allowed defendants contention that the plaintiff is required to pay court fees on the amount of consideration mentioned in the agreement dated 8/04/2004 and since the plaintiff has paid court fee only on an amount of Rs.60,000/—, he has been directed to make payment ofthe balance court fees. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since it has been pleaded in the plaint that out of sale consideration of Rs.5,10,000/— the plaintiff has already paid an amount of .Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant, he is liable to pay court fee only on the balance amount of consideration and not on the entire amount. (4) Payment of court fee in a suit for specific performance is governed by Section 7 (X) ofthe Court Fee Act, 1870 which provides Ethat in suits for specific performance of contract of sale, the court fee PETITIONER : Gopal Mangwani Versus RESPONDENT : Om Prakash Agrawal Appearance: 9/11 (if payable would be according to the amount of the consideration. In the present case the amount of consideration mentioned in the agreement dated 8/04/2004 is Rs.5,10,000/-, thus the petitioner/plaintiff is required to pay court fee on the entire amount of consideration and not on a part thereof. (5) Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the court fee wotild be payable only on the balance amount of consideration is not acceptable because theword consideration mentioned in clause (X) of section 7 of Act, 1870 would mean the amount of consideration mentioned in the agreement and not the balance amount of consideration as claimed by the plaintiff. If this argument is allowed, in every such suit, for avoiding payment of court fees -plaintiff would make a prayer that substantial amount of consideration has already been paid and he is liable to pay court fee only on the balance amount of consideration. (6) In the opinion of this court, the court below has not committed any illegality by directing the plaintiff to deposit balance amount of court fees. (7) Instant petition has no substance, it deserves to be, and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge