M'^ A 1\) ^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. | I ^ 12007 y^ APPLICANT DEFENDANT N0.6 Motilal S/o. Late Shri Sagarmal, Aged about 55 ycars, R/o. Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal,. District Surguja (CG) VERSUS ^ RBSPONDENTS ^ SmL. Usha Devi, W/o. Ashok •PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS E/ „„„„ ^Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, Districl Surguja (CG) -Plaintiff .........^^ ^^^\ 2] Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Shri Sagarmal, Aged about 48 years, h. 3] Umesh Kumar S/o. Lat.e Shri Sagarmal, Aged about 40 years, x ^' '"• .M. '• ..r rr- 4] Rakesh Kumar S/o. Late Shri ,^^"w'' _Y [^^y ^' Sagarmal, Aged about 36 ycars, 5] Shankar Prasad, S/o. Late Shn ^:'. ^' v ^ ^p .^ Sagarmal, Aged about 43 years, 6] Shiv Kumar S/o. Latfc Shri >^ QSagarmal, Aged about 52 ycars, Respondent No. 2 to 6 are R/o. Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG) 74- St-ate of ChhatLisgarh, Through: Collector, Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Respondent No.2 to 7 defendants CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (^) OFCiiHATTiSGARHAXBILASRJR Motiiai PLAINTEFF/DEFENDANTS Smt. Usha Devi and others. CE¥IL SECTION 11S QF THE CODE..QF CjVIL Mr. .N,K. JJ : Shri M.V. Paranjape, counsel for the app'licant. Shri Pushty, counsei for respondents No.1.2,3,5&6. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawai, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondent No.7. ORAL on 18th day of November, The instant petitlon is directed agalnst the order dated 07- 09-2007 passed by CSvll Judge, C|ass-j, Ramanujganj jn Cjvii Suit No.tS-A/2007 vvhereby and whereunder an appjicatjon filed by the petltjoner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC raising questlon of Court fees, has been dismissed hotding that this questlon can be raised by the petltioner In written statement which shoujd be after recordlng evldence in accordance wlth !aw. 2, The only prayer made by Jearned 'counse! for the applicant in'this petltion is that in view of judgment of Suprerne Court Jn case of vs. & in AIR 1973 SC 2384, the question of court fee shouid be decided by the trial Court by Sooklng into the allegatjons. in tl^e piaint, and there-lore, as far as question of Court fees is concerned, it ought to have been dedded by She trial Court at ieast'by'framlng preiiminary tesue in thjs regard. The submlssion made by learned counsel appjicant Is proper b^ Kvr •whjch Is not opposed by the counsei appearing for the non- app!jcants. 3. The submission of learned counsei appearing for the appEicant seems to be justifled and weli settled In this regard. The questlon of Court fee court has to be decided by the tria! Court on the basis of aiSegations Jn the pSaint. 4. Accordingly, this petition Is disposed of v/jth a djrectlors.to the triai Court that the trial Court shai! decide the issue regarding court fees as a preliminary Issue in accordance with Eaw. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge