s* THE Hisi: OOUM.OF ?uJce[Gasnj,tS-M_Sx._aS!siX {.i^e. UHI(fni»>»fjl^-rini»l-n-ltJl-nmrt-"-^at""a'hi-»Tm»--T:-'--*f1—r-A'**w<l»<fl"l»l ftlini^ll't*WT»»a.Bt»whd*afrrf(h^^M"**^na(n[n«w*l K1^11l—( d*KMt*ln»rt T11MmrtnrtaI^»j(tfBrvflvn?B: -7 -?'/^ M0»_^____ •fclfwa Bttti*^tlUn»m»f>n»lluafha»t 'A P&A.Ii'ISIS'i'S NIIIIhy—j i»)tEi»ff^lKflT|hrKIUNttitti(hfrtBttna Qss'ES.rearrs .^ .^ ^M./ rvj /^•''\V '^'Au- .H './Sp^\rv'' fy 'yR-y ."V V* / ^ •l-v'' /'^^ ^.y C5y'^// <<'^f:.9^ y /l. Scit.tirmlla Bai ag«i 32 years wla®w®£ Bamaikh Kurr® / 2. iE^.LlcA.a ageet l3 yaaCa .. 3, Vlkas aged 9 years* 4, ''iSl^a^ aged 7 years. Hos. 2 to 4 i-fri.Bors aaughtsr. ifi6 aans ef late femsa^h aUaxigh aataral g.iardiian mot;her Drmlla BaA • • .» i^&llafi-t NO.I Ml res<s?.eits of villa.ge Salhepar Tahsll Berla Disfcrlct Qitrg (C.G.). 1. Sinfc.ChanQa Sal aged 39 yrs» wlcew o £ Sa-asalth 'Kc.rre 2. Ka.Shashl age3 16 years» - 3. 'Sw.s Sarita ag®313 years 4« KB.. H^-alata a;geu 10 years 5. KQ. pr&gafcl aged 8 years 6. KU. H®»esht»arlagetS 4 yearg '?• Karal sh Kainar aged 6 years. t'lbs* 2 te> "? Hdnors tbitough naturaL guardlan nrether Siat.» Chaada BaS. • • Respaadeat Ho.l All resl'.iats'e-f village Salhepir TaAsll Bsrla Dlstrict Etirg (C*G.). 8. Hon<^e Qsllector Dirg (03) 9« Hbn,''£g.e DlstrAct BQiicat5Ga OfS.cer Banetara Distriot Oarg (C.G,). 10. E-lec'ble Block Oeveloomait SducatAga Ofacer, iaeick Berla Dlstt* Surg (G.G.). <^ !; VSlEI 30 N5llf5USt%TsHl SO~LZZ""'3rGi3S?"VSC.Kfl NOI.T.I.ISd HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Pefrtion (2271 No.117/2010. Petjtioners Respondents Versus Smt. Urmita Bai and dhere. Smt. Chanda Bai and cAhers. Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, cwjnsel for the pet'rtioners. None appears for respondents. >t Writ Petition under Articte 227 ofthe Const'rtution oftndia ORAL ORDER (11.01.2010) Heard on the question of admisston. (2) By the impugned order dated 03.10.^X», the trial Court has rejected the plaintiTTs prayer for permisaon to exempt her from the Court fee on the ground that she is a poorlady havii^ no means to pay the Court fee. The trial Court has granted an opportunfty to the petitioner to prove her indigence by examining the wtnesses. BcAh the parties have examined their respective w'rtnesses and on the appreciation of the evidence recorded, the teamed trial Court has refused to permit petitioner/plaintiff in forma-pauperism, i.e. indigent person. The Court belcw has found that the plaintiff is having yellow ration card which is meant to be issued Tor the pereon Bving above the poverty line. There being no error committed by the Court below in finding that the ptaintiff is not entitled to be exempted Trom the payment of Court fee, the present petition filed under Articte 227 of the Cjonstftution of India faite and is hereby dismissed at the admission stageitseff. Sd//- "~~ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge „/