-^' •^ 1 \J IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} CIVIL REVISION N0. ^ OF 2007^y^ -^^ ^" APPLICANTS DEFENDANT N0.8 ^DEFEDANT N0.9 f$ ..-^ 1. Navin Kumar Verma Son of Dr. Chetan Singh Verma, aged about 21 years; 2. Praveen Kumar Verma Son of Dr. Chetan Singh Verma, aged about 23 years; Both are residents of Village Navapara, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS <- ^l. Smt. Mumtaj Begum Widow of RLAINTIFFS /.^ Late Kasam Ali @ Chhunne Miyan, aged about 70 years; :. -M ^^ 2-A. Sayyed Kausar Ali Son of Shri GauharAli, aged about 20 years; 3. Sayyed Guljar Ali Son ofjShri Gauhar Ali, agedabout 19 years; 4. Ku. Shabina Begum D/o Shri ^ Gauhar Ali, age about 16 years, Minor; 5. Ku. Rajiya Begum D/o Shri Gauhar Ali, aged about 15 years, Minor; ^ ^ (2-? 'w .J.j"^ The plaintiff No. 4 & 5 are Minors, through their next friend Uncle Shri Nawab Ali S/o Shri Kasam Ali, Musalman, Occupation Shopkeeper, and respondent N0.1 to 5 are residents of Village Bazarpara Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). 6. Bahadur Ali Son of Shri Kasam Ali, Musalman, aged about 40 years; ^ ^f. Rajjak Ali Son of Shri Kasam Ali, Musalman, aged about 38 years; Q 8. Nawab Ali Son of Shri Kasam Ali, i¥—^>/ Musalman, aged about 30 years; .^ Vi The plaintiff No. 6 to 8 are Occupation Shopkeeper, and residents of Village Bazarpara Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). DEFENDANT N0.1 ^' 9. Vijay Son of Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal; DEFENDANT N0.2 /? 10. Vinod Son of Shri Ganesh Prasad "} ^' Jaiswal; DEFENDANT N0.3. DEFENDANT N0.4. '^^ 11,. Ramesh Son of Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal; 12. Navin Son of Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal; ^'! ':h-^':" DEFENDANT N0.5. /7 13. Shanti Bai Widow of Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal; The defendant No. 9 to 13 are residents of Village Than Khamhariya Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.). At present residing at Village Bhathapara, Mahamaya Mandir Gandhi Ward, Tahsil Bhathapara, District Raipur (C.G,). DEFENDANT N0.6^ ^14. Dr. Motilal Towery Son of Shri Ganga Kisan Towery, aged about 43 years; DEFENDANT N0.7 (-)15. Ramesh Towery Son of Shri Ganga Kisan Towery, aged about 4.0 years, Occupation Medical Store; The defendant No.14 & 15 are residents of Sadar Bazar Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). DEFENDANT N0.10 //l^. Ratipal Son of Shri Jaspal Punjabi, aged about 32 years; DEFENDANT N0.11 17. Jaspal Singh Arora Son of Shri Sardar Singh Arora, aged about 55 years; DEFENDANT'NO.12 , yl8. Kamaljeet @ Deepak Arora Son of Shri Jaspal Singh Arora, aged about 35 years; The defendant No.16 to 18 are Occupation Shopkeeper and residents of Durg Road, Near Ganj Mandi, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara,.District Durg (C.G.). DEFENDANTN0.13 /? 19, •^.../ c>-^ DEFENDANTN0.14C' 20... DEFENDANTN0.15 ^: Smt. Dimpal Saluja Wife of Shri Surjeet Singh Saluja, aged about 30 years, Occupation House Wife, Through: Saluja Medical Stores, Village Pandariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Smt. Rekha Wife of Shri Amolak Singh Rajpal, aged about 28 years, Occupation House Wife, Through: Husband, Gurunanak Readymade, M. V. Market, In Front of Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.). Smt. Kanchan Lamba Wife of Shri Deepak Lamba, aged about 26 years, Occupation House Wife, Resident of Through: Husband Anand Hotel, Geetanjali Building, Old Bus Stand, Korba, District Korba (C.G;). CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION ifs OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0.49 OF 2007 APPL1CANT NON- APPLICANTS Ravipaj Versus Smt. Mumtaz Begum & others. ^^ Present : Shri Y.C. Sharma, counseS for the applicant. Shri V.A. Goverdhan, counsel for Non-appljcants No.1 to8. CIVIL REVISION N0.50 OF 2007 APPLICANTS : Navin Kumar Verma & anottier Versus NON- APPUCANTS Smt. Mumtaz Begum & others. Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, counsej for the applicant Shri V.A. Goverdhan. counsel for Non-applicante No. 1 to8. Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsei for non-appijcant No.16. REVISION UNDER SECTION 116 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ^CODE^tSOr fSinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.i ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of January, 2010) Cjvil Revision Nos. 49/2007 and 50/2007 arise out of the same order i.e. order dated 26-12-2006 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2006 by Second Civil Judge, Class-11, Bemetara, District Durg therefore, both the revisions are being disposed of by the common order. 2. The fects briefiy stated are as under: Non-applicant/'plaintiffs instituted a suit elajming rejjef of decjaration, injunction and possession with regard to the suit iand. The defendants have filed their written statement. They have also fjjedan application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and contended that the suit is under valued; proper Court fee has not been paid and the suit is barred by limitation. 3. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court rejected the contentions of the defendants with regard to Court fees and vaiuation, aiso held that the question of limjtation as raised cannot be decided at this stage and the same shall be decided after recording evidence in the case. 4. Learned counset appearing for the applicants woutd sutomit that as per Section 7(v)(d) ofthe Court Fees Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') where the land forms part of any estete paying revenue to Government but definite shape of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned, the Court fee is payable on the market value ofthe land. Jn the instant case, the plaintiffs had putttie market value of the suit land as was prevaillng in the year 1962, and, therefore, the valuatjon is per-se illegal ConsequenUy, the Court fee is not paid properly v^iich also effects the jurisdictjon of the Court and therefore, the same order deserves to be set aside. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the partiesand after perusing the order jmpugned, in ttie considered opinion of this Court, the revision preferred by the applicants are devoid of substance. So far as the provision contained in Section 7{v) ofthe Act is concerned, the same stands substituted by M.P. Act of 4/1976 bywhieh clause 7(v)(d) stands omitted and now there is no such clause in the Court fees Act, so far as the State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned. Moreover, the case is covered under Section 7(v)(c) of the Court fees Act under which if the land is not assessed to land revenue, proper valuation would be twenty times of the Jand revenue worked out @ 2/- per acre and in this way, it cannot be said that plaintiffis had under valued ttie suit or not paid the proper Court fee. 6. The Supreme Court in case of Sri Rathnavafmara/a v. Smt Vimla reported in AIR 1861 SC 1299 has held that the question of Court fee is primarily the question between the plalntiff and the State. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move th@ superior Courts by appeal or in revlsion against the order adjudging payment of Court fee payable on the plaint. The Court fees Act was enacted to colject revenue for the benefit oftiie state and not to arm a ^•y^^ "Xvr ^ ^ contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trtel of nature. 7. In view of foreaoina, the revisjons beina devoid of substance are liable to beand hereby dismissed. 8. So far as the question of Ijmitation or any other question which may have been raised by the defendants in their written statement, will certainly be decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence on its own merits in accordance with law. — Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge