IN THE HIGH CQURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P._N0.2M?7 /2003 ^ 's PETITIONER DEFENDANTNO.l RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFF ^^ •^>^'Q^" ^^'^" ^•' dff •'° ». /•' •^•' ^' DEFENDANT N0.2 &3 Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o. Dhanna Lal Sharma Agedabout55years,R/o. Bhai'kapara.,,Rajn.andgaon(C.G.) VERSUS •il Gom.tiBai,W/o.BanwariLalSharma Aged about 35 years, R/o. Mahukhurd, Post Mahukala Gangapur City, (Rajasthan) . Throu^ifbe PowerofAtbomeyholder 'Banwari Lal Shafm.a, S/o. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, R/o. Mahukhurd, Post Mahukala Distt.Sawaimadhavpur Gangapur City (Rajasthan) 2. BaisakhmBaiSahu,W/o. Dashrurani Sahu, Aged about 98 years, R/o. Hiranioti Line Rajanandgaon Tahsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Naresh Baid, Aged about39 years S/o. Bhawar Lal Baid, R/o. Sadarbazar Rajnandgaon Tah. SsDistt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) t': 371 WRITraymnONUNDERAKnCLE 2270FTEIE CONSm'UTIONOFINmA > The petitioner most humbly and respeetfailly begstfto state as under :- ' F;|1:;!":R txl-Hfi'-aa- 3T^!I^I •fynwaigsT ^rW^i *iiea ^-.' ..-^a^FgTN;'1^81'?"^''11"^ ' ^.Ly,i.,..2^SA|^o i)pfl?n sb+iiw sn^i'FRitw'^to 30/08/2003:- Heard Shri Ravindra Agrawi^ fil4d By this writ .petition Constitution of Indiathe petitio 26/06/2003 passed bythe leam< Ctose No.T-AofZOOZ. The caseofthe petitioner a suit for declaration and injuncti^n lacs and for declarotion Rs.SOOJ presentation of the plaintthe coui^t wee issued. The petitioner n^aintainabilityosf^tl'iesuitonthegj The value is more than rupees f( respondent Nb.l is required to pa) not been paid by the plaintiff. Thi liable tobe rejected. The order p< District Judge is Annexure-P/3. returned for proper presentatii corrected the valueof the claim ol in the Court of District Judge, Roy an applica+ion under Section 35 o-1 the plaintiff mentionjng therein tl *wf<-f'fl-)WCTf.Ti1s%f<fa«ci<. ^r aiNiT CTt?f counsel forthe petitioner. under Art-icles 22.6/227 o^ the er has challenged the order date;d District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil that plaintiff/respQndent No.l filed valuing the ciaim in suit for Rs.2.00 ^- for injunction. Atthetimeof fee of Rs.530/- was pdid. Notices 'aised an objection towards the hound thdt the suit was under valued. ^elve lacs. Therefore, the plairitiff thead yaloremcourt fee which hois |s, theplajnt of respondent No.l was |issed by the learned First Additional (The plaint of responflent No.l was iji. The plaintiff/r^spondenf No.l ^ the suit and thereafter presented ^andgaon •foradjudication. Later on, |the Court Fee Act hjas benfiled by ^aftheplairitifhasnpmean$topay/ :.t<ft^w \.'.. XI-HC-22 ai^B^BT f^liqi ^T^fT ^(e0 *1%Tt: •3^-Bipncra, ®;gtgire;-1q?ira5< -':.":-:Nl^T::"':I^R''- '•-1 - -:; :' - *ii*<CTig»<Tra> •sn^i^tiim^te bfe the court fees. Therefore/she 1 valorem Court fee and the matteit the plaintiff from the paymento'f| statement Learned Court below condilcted status of the plaintiff and the out the financial statusof the pl4i exemption from payment of Court^ submitt-ed bytheS&O (Revenue) of the learned &istrict Judgebe q(iashed an enquiry in respect of the was also recorded for finding 4intiff. The bistrict Judge orcfeped fee without considering the report- ^angapur City. Therefpre, the order RulelofOrderXXXTEE t. Sui'ts moy be person—Subject to the suit may be instituted by an {Explanation I.- A person,- (a) If he is noti mecms (otherthan propertyi in execytion of a decree the suit) to eriable him to law for the plaintin such sui anil '*t<<I<'i<il-i *-iiy<'il" fl ivS <[ai«;ii i? aipgii an^T exempted from •the payment of ad be adjudicated after exemption of Court fee in the case. I have heard'the leanned co^insel appearing for tl'iepetitioner. pro|vides thus: |instituted by indigent ^ollowing provisions, ahy |[indigentperson}. j jperson is an indigent fcossessed of sufficient 4xsn'pt from attachment the subjBct-matterof p^y the fee prescribed by ,or •^ ll!l" •-^ XI-HC-22 antw^T. 'fe^OTi?! ^flc^ ^tS^l; ^ •TE?;^ira@ra, 'yAy*i<»,^<'ii«i'i< wwn ih*ii<»> •M 200 ai^iTOiiwtrf^T -'s- plaintiff/res()ondent The plaihtiff/respondent t(l is enable To pay the Court fee. District Judge and afterenquiry'j' conclusion that the the Court' fee. Therefore, the| application. A perusal of the or| Judge has passed the impugnedo to the petitioner to,.adduce evide^ evidence regarding the financial impugned order has been passed and after giving thei opportunity| evidence. I do not findahyreasol'l in wfritjurisdiction,as t-his CourtC) 7 . ..-.••'.. '. . • •• . ••..'-.'.•./ - .. .:;. nosubstance jn this wirit petitibn. <Pn In the result, the petition >'- 1>^ *l<l(!'l<it'< *41*l<-if'? feIZt <&l«tK. ^siRlHsn^r ' to.l ha^ moved an qpptication that she pn this, enquiry was conducted by the \he learned Districtjudge re.ached the No.l is not in a positipn to pay leamed District Judge allowed the ler reveals that the- learned &istrict 'der in which an opportunity was given hce, but he was not ableto adduce any (status of the respondent No.l. The ^fter following the proper procsduc? to both the parties to adducedPthe to interfere with the impugned order (annot sit as appellate Court. There is bdismissed. L.C. Bhadoo Judge [T^ ^fo^