PETITIONER DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS ,^> /¥. Nd-7/ ^^^ -J/JSV- ^y' li<ty' f LL OL( W THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. •^^S^/2009 Biharilal Gupt @ Jwala Prasad Gupt, S/o. Late Sitaram Gupt, Aged about 58 years, Banshidhar Gupt S/o. Late Sitaram Gupt, Aged about 50 years, Ramesh Kumar Gupt S/o. Late Sitaram Gupt, Aged aboyt 41 years, All above R/o. Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, District Surguja (CG) Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (Building & Road) Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG) Smt. Kamla Devi, D/o. Late Sitaram Gupta, Aged about 55 years, R/o. village Suarpara, Sitapur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) Plaintiff/Non-Applicant No.i Smt. Nirmala Devi, D/o. Late Sitaram Gupta, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Nagar Panchayat Ramanujganj, village Ramanujganj, Ward No.2, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG) .Plaintiff/Non-Applicant No.2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227^0ILTHE .CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4] + fe> "SSf "4|^]<'l'tl, 8>Tt1<H'IS, ISI<ni<Hli< ^ c»^> '2>^. ^':>- •^ 9 •OT^I•q^? (1c!fj«<4t?) ^T ^K¥?Sfililst> <^l^lTd^l^ *iW^ Tf fe%i" ^t1 ^sTfimsii^i !0. 07.201 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advoc| Shri PK Bhaduri, Panel Lawl Heard on admission. The Instant petition is dirl S.06.2009, passed by Ramanujganj, Surguja (CG), in c and whereunder the application fil 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismis^ T'ne only prayer made by Sh| in view of judgment of Supreme Ci v. Rajender Prasad & Others, repc question of court fees should be looking into the alleaations in the question of court fees is concerned |lriai court at ieast by framing issue icted against the order dat |onal District Judge, (FTC), ivii suit No. 5-A/2007, whereby ^d by the petitioners under Order bed. tefor pefitioners. er for theState. i Paranjpe in this petitlon is that )urt in case of Shamsher Singh rted in AIR 1973 SC 2384, the decided by the trial court by plaint, and therefore as far as it ought to have decided by the ^lo. 5 as preliminary issue. .ffll ifiEti-^i^ ^^ i^^'m^T ^?-it^ru^^iLSZSi-S==-LlJ-^ ^.^^es ^^*" si-m f£ '•s:^f; L"i%£<^-HC-78 1^ ^s; •^|^|<y]'4, ^nly're, [^ciwli,< sn^T'q^r (TN3^sT) an^i'Rifem? wian^Sisinw TOiiWtrftasn^R '*'wici<h-i ^wvS^ fet?t ifa-^K. '^sTRitisn^i The submission of Shri Par^nje seems to be justified. The law is well settled in this regard. T|ie question of court fees has to be decided by the trial court on the basis of allegations. Fherefore, issue No. 5 ougjit to have decided by the trial court 'oy framing t'ne preliminary issjje. Accordingly, this petition is d| triai court that the triai court shali decide the issue No. 5 framed in isposed of with a direction to ths the case as preliminary issue, and suit in accordance with law. However, if the respondents they are free to move appropriate c hereafter shail proceed wit'n the herein feel some .qrievance thei tsplication. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge .-i_ --——3—.^—^^ '£