y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Aj>plicants Defendants No.1A to 5. 7 to 9 Non-applicants Plaintiffs DEFENDANT N0.6 DEFENDANTNO.IO DEFENDANTN0.11 C.R.No.15/2009 1. Smt. Rajkunwar, Wd/o Late Nikhad Singh, 45 years, 2. Dull Bai @ Laxmi, D/o Late Nikhad Singh, 26 years, 3. Aasha Bai, D/o Late Nikhad Singh, 22 years, 4. Abhimanyu @ Balli, S/o Late Nikhad Singh, 20years, All R/o Achanakpur, Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Shishupal Singh, S/o Late Bhavsingh, 50 years. 6. Smt. Bhagmati, Wd/o Late Bhavsingh, 70 years, 7. Anujram, S/o Tijauram, 60 years, 8. Gendram, S/o Tijauram, 55 years, 9. Shanti Bai, D/o Late Tijauram, 35 years, 10. Dhanuk Ram, S/o Late Tijauram. 11. Malti Bai, d/o Tijauram, 32 years, (Name of Malti bai is not mentioned in the impugned order though she is a party before the Court below). Applicant No.5 yo 11 are R/o Village Jhulna, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Asha Das, W/o Bhagwan Das, 50 years, R/o Rajendra nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Through power of Attorney Holder Alok Kumar, S/o Shankar Lal, 27 years, R/o Priyadarshini Nagar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Shrim Ram, S/o Tijauram, 50 years, R/o Vill. Jhulana, The. Mungeti, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Gaukaran Singh Maravi, S/o Ramsingh Maravi, 32 years, R/o Village Achanakpur, Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District Bilaspur. CIVrL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Present : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, counsel for the applicants. Shri Padmanabh R. Patankar, P.L. forthe State/respondent No.4. — ^< ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11tn February, 2009) Heard. This Civil Revision is being disposed off with certain directions at the stage of admission. 2. The applicants are defendants in Civil Suit No.39-A/2008 pending before the 2nd Additional Judge, Bilaspur. The non-applicant No.l/plaintiff had instituted Civit Suit No.39-A/2008 for specific peri'ormance of the contract dated 16.02.2004, for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 9 in favour of defendant No.10 on 4.6.2008 be cancelled as void and also for permanent injunction. 3. Application under Order 7 Rules 10 & 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the applicants before the trial Court. The trial Court has, by the impugned order, decided the application as under: "^t ^ c|l<4-?l ^TcR^T TT?T T^r ^TcrTcr icpr ^cidich-i "(^TT TrqT i 'cn? ^R^T ^ TT^cn^r y'^j,dchi'< ^RT ^Tt yR'ic)^-ri ff^cT f^TT TraT t ^"^ ^RTra -^f^f ^i^ zp^ ipri^T ^t^^cch 'ERqr f^qr ^TcR ^44^|c<fSr ^ yp^ ^ft "ilt^td^l ^ ^nf^K ^ ^m'ffcr ^K TT^T f^TT ^TT-TT qrqr Tfqr ^- fz^g Hf^raT^t ^o 1 ^r7 "^ ^gcr STT^T STTO 7 f^r 10 ?ET 11 sroffo^ro ^ sranf^ •^ 3Tra1^r I^TT t f^? ciiR4l ^t ^TPft f^TT^T t^ 'cTR' WTf^T ^ GTT^TR ^FT ^PT ^l'cb-l ^? ^RT ^N ^f^r ^rra ^ccp "ERqr zi^rr SIT f^; qrf^ft ^ §T?T ^T ^rt ^ra" 4^ii'cb-t 'f^zrr '^TT t ^ft? 'FIT ft ^RT T^i^^c^ 'cRqr f^zrr ^qT ti yR|c|l<{1^1ul ^RT ^3^P? TT^ ^RT ^TFTf^T ^TR' ^t f^T-'cp^, '^i^T1 'cT 4^<^d I^l^l^ll (TSTT ^s5TT 'yT-'^Tq' ^? Pl^l<^d f^? ^f ^l' f^T tl ^?ft l^rf^r ^ yRiciicTi^|ui ^RT g^r ^TCT^T ^TO 7 1-r 10 ?cr 11 'aTOHO'^O ^TH f^srf^ "Ft ^PN f^? ^TPT 'zD^ ^ tt 3RT: yRItciicft^|ui -gj^ ^r^T ^rr^r 'OT^T n^zr ^cr ^RfNf^ff ^ ^rf^r f^TT ^TRTT 11 ycb\;u| yp|c||4) ^01 ^ f^Tcp yRlPll^Pl^' ^t ^TfW^ %^ P|i|4HI^N ddc|IT11 ST^T ^t ^ni ^D' ^M^T ^t ?!' I" 4. It is well settled that for the purposes of determining whether proper court fees fias been paid in a suit the averments in plaint alone have to be seen. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional District Judge mentioned in the impugned order about the report given by the Court Reader on presentation of the plaint that the suit was properly valued. His '2- C^i^\ d approach in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure and postponing the determination of question of Court fees till hearing of suit is also completely erroneous. The learned Additional District Judge ought to have decided the application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the C.P.C. on merits and should have, after hearing parties, passed a well reasoned order on the objection raised by the applicants herein. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur shall pass a well reasoned order and decide the application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the C.P.C. on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 5. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. Sd-/ ilipRaosabebDeshmukb Judge Dilip