HIGH CQURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (227) No. 6905 of2008 PETITIONERS Defendants : 1. Hemant Prakash, S/o M.D. Prakash, Aged about 42 years. 2. Manjri Prakash, W/o M.D. Prakash, aged about 38 years; Both are R/o Mohalla Sattipara, Nagar & P.s. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Neeraj Kathgar, S/o R.D. Kathgar, aged about 48 years. Plaintiffs Defendant 2. Narendra Kathgar, S/o R.D. Kathgar, aged about 44 years. 3. Sunita Kathgar, D/o R.D. Kathgar, aged about 38 years. 4. Anita Kathgar, D/o R.D. Kathgar, aged about 34 years. 5. Sarika Kathgar, D/o R.D. Kathgar, aged about 31 years. 6. Sarita Kathgar, D/o R.D. Kathgar, aged about 30 years, All are R/o Mohalla, Sattipara, Nagar & P.S. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 7. State of Chhattisgarh through Collectojr, Surguja, Ambikapur (CG). WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 327 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Aenihotri.J. Present: 1. Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th day ofDecember, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. The petitioners/defendants impugn the order dated 15,09.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the III Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, Surguja, in Civil SuitNo. 73-A/07, whereby the trial Court observed that Section 7 (v) ofthe Court-fees Act, 1870 (for short 'the Act, 1870') would be applicable as the respoftdents No. 1 to 6/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration, permanent mjunction and possession. 15 daystime was accordingly granted to the plaintiffs to pay the Court fees in accordance with law on the suit for possession. . ,. 2. The contention of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendaats that the respondents/plaintiffs have not paid proper com1: fee, as the ^v ^ 7. Sahu plamtiffs have not valued the suit in accordancewiththe marketrat^fthe suit land and if proper court fees is paid in accordance with the real valuation, the Civil Court may not havejurisdiction to entertain the suit. On perusal of the papers, it appears fhat leamed Judge has accepted the court fees for declaration and permaaent injunction butwifh regard to relief of possession, the leamed Judge has not accepted the court fees, and has granted 15 days time to file proper court fees. Subsequently, by order dated 04.10.2008, the plaintiffs have deposited the court fees on the valuation of the suit land i.e. Rs. 3,46,365/-, as deterrtiined by the Revenue Inspector. The Gourt below has declined to consider the objection on the basis of orderdated 15.09.2008 which does not deal with the court fees payable on possession of suit. Therefore, the order dated 04.10.2008 may be recoHsidered again. The petitioners/defendants have not impugned the order dated 04.10.08, except the order dated 15.09.2008, thus, this Court cannot examine the said order dated 04.10.08. There is no infirmity in the order dated 15.09.08 which is impugned herein in this petition. So far as the consequential order dated 04.10.08 is conGemed, there is no challenge in this Court and as such the petition againstfhe order dated 15.09.08 is dismissed as the same isjust andproper. However, on the request of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 04.10.08, ifso advised. Accordmgly this petition is dismissed summarily with the above stated liberty. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, also stands disposed of. Sd/- • Satish K. Agniliotri Judge