HIGMGOUf^ W ^NATTISe^H AT Btt.^>PUR WritP8tiUor(@271N0^640of281Q (swRfftim WSS9S Petitioners Defendants No.3 to 5 ^! Respondents 1 2. 6. Abdul Naeem,^edaboHt—54yeare, S/e—Hajt Abdul Rahi(H,Oc<iugatJon:.- Unemptoyed, R/o — Akmei^i Soicmyr Maulaha Abdul Colony; , Nlglttenai; Abdul RauT Ward, Raipur (©©). DefehdantNo.3. f : Abdul Kayyian, Aged about - 52 years, S/o ~ Haji AbduF RghirB,: OcGUpatlon - Uneniployed,s R/e . Ahmedji Colony.Maulana AbdCtR^wt! Ward, Raipur (CG) defendant No.4 Abdu! Karim, ^ed about - 49 years, S/o - Abdul Rahim.OccupatJQn ~ Unemployed, R/o Ahmedji Colony, Maulana Abdul Rauf Ward, Raipur (CG) defendant No.5 Veesus Hajiyani Saida Jamat, Agsci about - 55 years, W/o - Uaji Mohsunmed Jamaluddin, R/o - Infront of Raipur Bakery, Madarsa Road, Baijnatbpgra, Raipur (CG) Hamida Begum, Aged about -54 years, D/o - Haji Abdul Rahim, Rto - Sanjay Nagar, Raipur (C&) Amna Begum, ^ed abeut - 53 ysars, W/o - Shabbir Quereshi, La»niNagar, Behind Marbie Line, Ring Road; Raipur (CG) Hajiyani Ayesha Begum, Aged about - 52 years, W/o - Haji Aehasanul Haq. imgation Colony, Bilaspur (CG) Farida Khan, Aged about - 50 yeare, W/o - Talaat Khan, R/o - Swarari Jyanti Nagar, Ring Road No.2, Blaspur (CQ) Wahida Begum, ^ed about - 48 years, W/o - Dr.Tanvir Ahmed. Rfo Mominpara, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (ptamtiffe/appellants) All ars rasidents of: C/o Hajiyani Saida Jamal Madarsa Road, Infront of Raipur Bakery, Baijnathpara, Raipur (CG) The Municipai Corporation, Raipur, Through; Commissioner, Municipat Corporation, Raipur (CG) Defendant h ,»», "€"",,, ii'3!S|ii - 2-- No.1 8. The Appeltate Committee, Municipal Corporation, Rafpur, Nagar Palik^ Bhawan, MaMya Road, Raipur^CG) Defendant No.2 OMrit Petition underArticle 227 oftheConstitutionof India) (SB: Horfble Mr. T.P. Sharma^J.) Present;- Mr.Goutam Bhaduri, counsef for thepetitioners. Mr.L.C.Dash, counsel for respondents N6.1 to 6. Mr.Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8. ,DL } ^) ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3" August, 2010) 1. Heard. 2. I have perused fhe order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the Xrtl Civil Judge Ctass li, Raipur in CivU Suit No.61A/(®,\irfierebythe XIII Civil Judge Class It has dismissed the petition filed under Order 7 Ruie 11 read with Sedton 1S1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') andSections 8 and 10 of the SuH: Valuation act. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits ttiat present respondents No.1 to 6 have flled the suit for deciaration of the ordsr passed by the respondents No.7 and 8 alleged Hiba exscuted by father of resptmdents No.1 {06 as null and void and injunction restraining the petitionei's from farther alienstion, therefore, the ptaintiffs were under obllgatien t®value the rdief in terms of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and in the present eas®,ciaim of injunction as a consequential relief of the relief of deciaratiOB as claimed by respondents No.1 to 6. Learned counsel furfcer sufamits that preperties are situated in different districts and at pressnt, market vatus of ths properties te more than Rs.1 crore, therefore, suit has not been presented betore ths Court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdictton. Learned counsel ontended that virtually the ptaintiffe are seeking the reiief relatlng to the foperties merrtioned in Hiba, ttierefore, they are required to vaiue the suit on thtbasis of market vaiue ofthe property. 4. On he other hand, leamed counsel for respondents No.1 to 6 opposes th® petitxn and submits that the ptainiife have fited ptain suit for dectaration ef one oider passed by respondents No. 7 and 8 one Hiba docianent as nuU "•n.f!" a •'•*- l.1 3 and void and injunction of three reltefe claimad by the (rfaintiffs ar® independent relief. 5. In the present case, relief of injunction is not consequentia! reiiefi The plaintiffs have not filed any suit for deciaration orcteim for any reliefrsiating to any property, but have filed the suit relating to twe documsnts i.e. one order and one Hiba and they have valued the suit in acc«s-dancevwth Aitide 17 (C) of Schedule-il ofthe Court-fees Act and fixed Couit-fees hss paid. 6. Admittedly, as per relief clause of the piaint, the plaintifls have claimed reltef of deciaration of two documents as null and void and Injunetion. AN reiiefc are independent reliets. No relief is consequentia! in nature. They have vafued the relief which they ctaimed, e^ecially reiated to two documerrts whteh according to the plaintiffe are null and void i.e. void document and not viodable. Even otherwise, the plaintiffis are not party to the documants. 7. After considering the aforesaid daims, reiiefsand iega! position, iearned Xlil Chrti Judge Class-it, Raipur has dismissed ttie petition fiied on fsehaif of the petitioners. Xtll Civil Judge Class-1! has rightly dismissed the petition. Ido not find any illegality in the order impugned. 8. Consequently, the petition is liabte to be dismfesed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ~~Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge