AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 777 of 2018

1. Daulatram, S/o Late Shri Tolasram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, 2. Hemandra, S/o Late Shri Tolasram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, 3. Sukhvati, W/o Late Shri Tolasram Sahu, Aged About 67 Years, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are Agriculturist and R/o Village Torla, Tahsil and District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgrh.

4. Ritam, D/o Late Shri Tolasram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, W/o Ashok, Caste Teli, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Khairjhiti, Tahsil and District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

5. Namita, D/o Late Shri Tolasram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, W/

o Paras, Caste Teli, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Maulimuda, Tahsi Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners /Plaintiffs Versus

1. Mordhwaj, S/o Miththulal Chandrakar, Caste Kurmi, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Torla, Tahsil and District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

2. Khojendra Giri Goswami, S/o Late Shri Arimardan Giri Goswami, Aged About 70 Years, Occupation- Sahukari and Cultivator, R/o Village Bandh Charouda, Tahsil Bagbahara, District-

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioners : Shri Malay Jain, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 /State : Shri Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

08.08.2022

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 23.06.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 35-A/2012 wherein while deciding the application moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the learned trial Court has held that the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and consequently proper Court fees has not been affixed, thus time was granted to the petitioners to affix proper Court fee.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by late Tolas Ram Sahu in favour of defendant No.2 dated 13.03.2006 and the sale deed dated 17.04.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 are null and void and for declaration of title over the suit land and permanent injunction. The petitioners/plaintiffs pleaded that a loan of Rs. 1 lakh was taken from defendant No.2 by Tolas Ram Sahu, father of the plaintiffs and the property was mortgaged. The sale deed was executed as a security and out of Rs. 1 lakh only Rs. 84,000/- was given to late Tolas Ram Sahu, the transaction was sham, therefore, they filed suit after death of Tolarsram Sahu seeking the reliefs mentioned above. The plaintiffs in para No.24 of the plaint have stated that they valued the suit pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.8,30,000/-, for declaration of title at Rs. 1,000/- and for permanent injunction at Rs. 1,000/-. Court fees of Rs. 600 has been affixed for declaration and Rs. 100/- for permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the plaintiffs have valued their suit at Rs.9,32,000/- but requisite Court fees has not been affixed, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The petitioners herein have replied to the said application and stated that Rs.9,32,000/- is valuation regarding pecuniary jurisdiction not for the purposes of Court fees and the requisite Court fees has been affixed according to the Court Fees Act.

4. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.06.2018 held that for pecuniary jurisdiction separate valuation has been done but requisite Court fees has not been affixed thereby granted 7 days time to the plaintiffs to affix proper Court Fees. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 23.06.2018. Vide order dated 28.06.2022 the proceedings of the learned trial Court have been stayed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned tr