cy ^) < ^ 7"-/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} N.A.(^^ /09 Single^Bencfi APPELLANT .^- ^ PLAWTIFF ..^^^ ^ ^-rfv^ ^ ^\ •••• ''.^^yl1n..l^- \i^^ ^^-::;:.....^' i.-r" RESPONDENTS ^EFENDANTS. PLAESTTIFF Krishna Bai W/o Late Golamal Aged about 67 yrs, Caste sachdev R/o Takhatpur, Tehsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ VERSUS ^l) Dhanraj S/o Chuhadmal Tolani Aged about 48 yrs 2) Smt.Padma Devi W/o Karamchand Tekwani Aged about 40 yrs Respondent No.l & 2 both R/o Takhatpur, Tehsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) . Mahesh ICumar S/o Avatmal Sindhi Aged about 46 yrs R/o S.K.Sugandhi Bhandar, Barhu-oad, Katni, Tehsil Katni, District Jabalpur (M.P.) Ashok Kumar S/o Golamal Sachdev Aged about 47 years Santosh Kumar S/o Golamal Sachdev Aged about 26 years Both Respondent No.4 & 5 are R/o Takhatpur, Tehsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE I OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE <fW^I »>*<1<1» -3-5EI ^j^ld^f; ^Ttl<H4I<o> fGI<rfiqH^C ^,.M...A....^o..;....^.tf../..&.5..^aw- a^l T?5W ('rt'^) W^I^Tl^W ^sn 3^¥i'^yw " ^ i^nw^f^T^^ ^.B. .Non'Be snn Justice._SX" Shri Rajiv on admlssion. The Jnstant Is 2009 by Addltionai No.58/2008. Shri Rajiv Bharat, learne| that order rejec.tirig the appiicatj^ Is Order 43 Ri present appeai is rnalntajnable. The bn'ef facts as per api sult seeking rellsf of deciaratic appilcatjon under Order 33 Ru!e | as indlgentperson, The appiicaj vlde its order 24-11-200i Court fee to the appeIEant. produced any order nor hasj was dlsrriissed, In fact, the learned Tria! 'WqfeT^ '^pq^f ^ f^Zt ^R$R '^3TfHH3^T for the appeliant. ;ted against the orderdated 14-07- istriGt Judge, Biiaspur In M.J.C. counse! for the n under Order 33 Rule 1 of C.P.C. !e 1 (n.a.) of C.P.C. and therefore, )el!ant are that the flied a 'n and possession aiong v/lth the |1 seeklng permlssion to fll9 the suit Eion by the Trial Court and granted time for payment of |Thereafter, neither the appeilant paid the Court fees, so, the M.J.C. ;ourt vide Order 24-11-2008 the under the M.J.C. was onjy pendl! Court fee so that the suit.may bt was not paid, the MJC as weii a^ Order 43 Rui@ 1 (n.-a.), order reje^ Ruie 1 & 2 Is made appeilabJe. $)rder 33 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and then ig for the purpose of payment of registered and when the Cous-t fee the suit has been rejected. Under ting the under Order 33 f.,tS.<h-f»Sf:^WW*-'!:efvv' *1(*TW WNICh TST •<ii<(i<yt^, ^ttlwito, ic«ni^^< . N)A. ^. ^cf Ol -^sw- p 1 3TT^?r <q3Rr (^I^^^) W^T^RT Rt^Jcb ^TiefT W^ri ^IN? 1R<HW ^f^ ^^ WErf^Fsft;T 'RT??^f ^ 'fe1^ <f^l^k •^TSTRm^n^r ^i ^ ''••^. By the the| order 24-11-20-08'rsjectlnl Rute 1 and therefore, the Instant not Is at n1.; appeljant has not challenged the l the ' Order 33 by the No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge