f>! •^iit^r ^T ft^ft^ WTW^I^^N? ^"^'^TRT^P?, '^f^FE^, l^rray ^...^.^.&?:7).TSJ.Gt...2:°..51JK.. '^?^^T^W^"'T"'"<'"""V^">"^""""""""""""^200 ^TS^IT?^^ ('^f^^l) I^fi^R ^lft^ ^itl? PBTITIONB& Defendaiit Na^ Defendant Na 3 RBSPONDEWTfi Pfc^MTIFF Defendant Na. 1 DefeadantlI^A Oefendant »o.s DefeadantMFo fi DefeadantN^T Defeadaat Na.a 1. 2. of 65 VBRSUS 1. <purbari Bai, widow ^udhram, aged about fears, caste Marar |ugur Bai, widow of Budhram, ^ged abaout 50 years, caste Warar J^oth the resident of village ^iroudpuri Tahsil Kasdol, Ij>istt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Ij>istt. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ^N^jh ^R^ff ^ fex€l^f^R ^^W^llt^? ajlohitmati, S/o Budhram, c^ste Marar, aged about 45 y^ars, Kastakar, village g^oudpuri, P.0. Giroudpuri, T^hsil Kasdo!, Distt. Raii (^G) A^present village Kouwatal, P|0. Giroudpuri, P.S. Bpaigarh, Tahsil'Kasdol, Distt. R^ipur (CG) A^ijor Prasad, S/o Budhram C^ste Marar, aged about 28 y^ars, S^hetrin Bai, widow of Bjidhram, Caste Marar, aged at{»out40years ' " Ki|ishna Kumar S/o Budhram C^ste Marar, aged about 25 yeSars H^ra Bai, D/o Budhram, caste M^rar, aged about 22 years MjnorAngar, S/o Budhram, cajste Marar, aged about 15 ye^rs M|nor_Rohni, D/o Budhram, ca^te Marar, aged about 13 ye^rs, ^TRI^?^^ ^TT^U^Hf^iM—FS/95—15 /2G08—1,00,000. 'S^T^S^Kn^ ^Tll^4!^ [®l<rl!^^; 3ff?^T '^^ ('^3^?) aii^^?'t^^ ^^T^^^i'^^W ^^TW^f^^i^r ^N^N'wj^f "^'fe^'^N^'R ^ ^[fwr^i^i Defendant No. 9 Defeodaat No. 10 8. 9. DefeadantNo. 11 10. Defendant No. 12 11. Defendaixt No, 13 Defendant Bfo. t4 12 13. lon-applicants No. 6 and 7 unor through Natural ^uardian mother Sahetrin Bai, ^idow of Budhram |espondents No. 2 to 7 ssident of village Giroudpuri, |ahsil Kasdolj» Distfc Raipur (FG} fanchram^ s/o Laxman, caste parar, aged about 50 years, Illage Giroudpyri, Tahail I^asdol, Distt. Raipur (CO) leera Ram, son of Bhushan |rasad, caste Koshtha, aged [bout 45 years, R/o village ^hatgaon, present in village (piroudpuri, Tahsil Kasdol, qiistt. Raipur (CG) ^hagirathi son of Budhuwa^ [aste Marar, aged about 55 sars, R/o vlllage Giroudpuri, Jtahsil Kasdol, Distt. Raipur FQ] ?|Iaharathi, S/o Budhuwa, Cpaste Marar, aged about 30 yjears, R/o village Qiroudpuri, |ahsil Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (I I] iG) |hukwara Bai^ D/o Bhagirathi^ cjaste Marar, aged about 25 yjearSj, R/o Giroudpuri, Tahsil I^asdol, Distt, Raipur (CG) (^anesh Ram Son of Bharatlal ^atnami, caate Satnamij, aged |bout 25 years, R/o village C^iroudpyri, Tahsil Kasdol, 'istt. Raipur (CG) ^R^N^^?<?: r ^I^^T^R—j7§/95—11 /20Q8—1,00,000. -3"^ '^TRM^I, ^nl^^J^ 1^ITCT3"< ^ii^r (1^^^r) ^T^T^T^iN' -^ms^^^hT WTT^;-«ft?T3^T Defeadaiit No. 15 14. Sjukhnandan, S/o Bhajnuram ^atnami, Caste Satnami, aged a|3out 19 years, R/o village Qiroudpuri, Tahsil Kasdol, qistt. Raipur(CG) 15. S|kate of Chhattisgarh, through C^Uector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur ((phhaftisgarh) WRIT PETITION VNmBRjMCTICLB 25S70F<Bg® DefendantNo. 16 COWSTITUTIOlr OP INDIA SB: HON»BLBSHRI JU8TICB W.K. ACARWAI. ll-S-2009 Shri Prakash Tiwari, Ad\ Ku. Saageeta M^hia, PJ Heard on adxmssion. direclfcd applic4tio: 2. Instaiit petition is 19-2-2009 whereby tfae herein under Oxxier 7 Rule 11 by fhe trial Court. ca^e 3. Brief facts of tfais instituted a civil suit bearmg the trial Court for seekiiig partition aad also reMef of de< the sale deeds executed by th< ofother defendaats arc illegal ^rafepN •Em^-irfe%t ^N^R ^a^H^n^i cx^ate^ for the appeUaxits. ^., forthe State. agamst the order dated tion filed by fhe petitioners C.RC» has been disinissed are tliat tfae plaiatlfif ;.S. No. 15-A/2008 before |tih.e relief of declaxatioii, yaration to the eflfect that defendaiit No. 1 ia favour alnd void ab imtio, ^^? ^"((^ <S^^i^{M—FS/95—l1/2008—1,00;000. ^i^T^T^W 'TOTW^I'^lN? 's^r ^{^i<n4, ^xTi^^^ [^t^i^^< C3^ WN^ff^^Pft" ^ir "q^^ (13^^^) ^^iTWKfNSR^r 4. The plaintiffvalued th4 300/-, permanent iojuHctionl at Rs. 126/- and for other accoxdingly, Court fec ofRs. 3| petitioi|iers ^neb^ 5. In fhe reply, the said valuation was incorrect dismissed as necessary court is a pleading by the petitione^ iinder valued, Based on the trial Court firamed specific i4s reads as under:- "Whether the plaintilf properly?" 6. At the sta^e of evidenct Coutt aa appMcation imder Order 7 been rejected by the trial raised by the petitioners is es valuation offbesuit aad for firaiiied, whicfa is a inixed qu< which is deeided m evidence is led by tlie parties. accorciaace ^Frf^h-TO^f ^ fe^ •^5R$R ^^fOT^ri^r relief of declarataton at Rs. at Rs. 300/-, aad partitioa dec]aration Rs. 300/- and 26/~ has been paid, hereia pleaded fhat the |and the sult is liabte to be fee has not beexi paid, Tlierc liex^m that the suit was ^leading of the pardes, the ^sue as Issue No. 5 which has valued fhe siiit 5, the petitioBers preferred ^ule 11 ofC.P.C. wlucli has by tioldiag that tbe pomt |sentialty a poiat rcgaixiiiig f^iat, speciQc issue faas beea i^stion of fact aad law and veifb law after the ^? ^XT4 -g^TT^r ^iRl^qt^—FS/95—11 /2008—1,QO,000. as'tr'^*'.""- •3:I1^T^T^i^ 'OTT W^T^^t^ -3^ ^I^SKPR, ^fRn^, (®lcrli^^< ^im^i'%'^T^' •^200 W^T ^I^ ('^ql^^) ^pmw^^^^T 7. Shri Prakash Tiwari, petitioners submits fhat the | regardiag valuation of fhe si4t hercm have raised fhe questio4 Judge Class II and accordlng has beea sought by the plaiGJtiff leamed counsel for the isaue has been fiamed whereas the petitioaiers crfjurtedicticm^criFthje Civil '^ 1:0 hi»,as the declaratlon declariag variows sale deeds to be void ab initio and, have been valued ia accoxdaiKfce sale deed aad if fhe suit wduld acconlaiice with fhe value of the linait of Rs. 25,000/-, pecuniaiy jurisdiction of Therefore, fhe suit was wifhoi|it tdal Court ought to have aUowied 8. I have heard learaed c4unsel for the parties and perused the record, ju^isdiction secti^n 9. The IJTnit ofpecuniaiy ju^ Class II, is clear frorn the 1956 which is Rs. 25,000/- bi^ valued or not» is a questioisj question ofjurisdiction ofCivilj suit has been valued by fhe ^Fife-^ •WRTT* ^" fe^ft TN^TC ^^fCT^H^l tterefore, the suit ought to with tfae valuation of tfae have been valued in deeds, fheir it wffl CTOBB is laaxiaium lioGdt of Civil Judge Class II, jurisdictfem axid leamed tlie application. s4de wBiich tbe ofthe Civil Judge 6 of tfae Civil Courts Act, (t whether the sudt is unxier which would decide fhe jJudge also. At preseiit, the ^laintiff a&d specific issue .TO^N^^ ^"U^ ^Rt^ra—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000, •3Tf^TW^t^ WT 3iT^i ^ii^ L_. ~3^[ "^I^Krl^, <c$xl1^4i^ 1^?ray "qr^^T'^^T^' ^T ^RT (^?^^) i^ll^ ^f^T ^T^i has been firamed by fhe tEfal Court wtdch wouM be decided by it ia accoitlan^ wifh law after leadio.g evidence by fhe parties. Iffhe trial Court wiU fiiid fhat fhe suit was under valued aad its valuation would be inore thaa 25,000/- then certaialy Jplamt would be returaed by it for proper presentation befi^re jurisdictional Court, but at present, filing the applicat|oa under Order 7 Riile 11, C.P,C. to stall tfae procee4iags of the civil suit is unwarranted, Even fhis obje^ petitioners till fhe case reach^d to fhe ste^e of evldence. In my opinion, no such fllegapily has been comxmtted by the leanied court below le^dmg to causiag icuaiiifest mjustice to the petitioners, 10. It is well setfled prmci^le of law that this CoBrt, m exercise of its supendsory ju^isdictioii uaader Article 227 of fhe Constitution of Indiaj interfermg with fhe order p^ssed by tihe Coiirt below except ia siich cases whe|^e perversity^ illegality or jiirisdictional error is wiit lar^ which is not in fhe present ca^e< 11, The petitioxi beiag devo|d of substance liable to be dismissed aad is hereby dism|ssed. — ^prf^i^ TOT^f ^ fe^'^i^r ^^rRm^T^i -tion was iiot raised by tiie should refraia itself finom p on the face of tfae recoxd, ^^N^m^r^ -FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge