YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.02.17

2026:CGHC:8184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 55 of 2026

1 - Dameshwar Prasad Yadav S/o Late Khelansingh Aged About 61 Years Assistant Director, Ultratech Cement Limited (Unit Ravan Cements Works), Registered Office- B Wing, Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, Mahakali, Cewers Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra, Local Office Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), R/o Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. (Correct Name, Details And Address Mentioned)

2 - Vinay Sharad Chitale S/o Sharad Chandra Chitale Aged About 51 Years (F H Mines), Ultratech Cement Limited (Unit Ravan Cements Works), Registered Office- B Wing, Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, Mahakali, Cewers Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra, Local Office Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), R/o Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar-

Bhatapara, C.G. (Correct Name, Details And Address Mentioned)

... Applicants versus

1 - Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Rajauram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Sarseni, P.H. No.- 01, R.N.M.- Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

2 - Rajauram Verma S/o Late Ramsingh Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Ward No. - 3, Gulmohar, Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

3 - Vinod Kumar Verma S/o Rajauram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Ward No.- 3, Gulmohar, Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

4 - Shrimati Gomti Verma D/o Rajauram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Ward No.- 3, Gulmohar, Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Balodabazar, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State/Non-applicant No.5 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

13.02.2026

1. By filing the present civil revision, the applicants have assailed the order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A-5) passed by the learned Second Additional District and Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, whereby the application preferred by them under Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act and Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has sought multifarious reliefs, including declaration of title, permanent injunction, confirmation of possession and declaration of registered sale deed dated 09.05.2024, executed in favour of the defendant No.4 and 5 for a consideration of Rs.36,32,219/-, as null and void, yet has not valued the suit in accordance with the market value of the property nor paid ad valorem court fee as mandatorily required under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act and Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act.

3. It is further submitted that from a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff claims title through his father, who is the executant of the sale deed in favour of the applicants. Therefore, having stepped into the shoes of his father and claiming right through him, the plaintiff cannot avoid payment of ad valorem court fee by cleverly couching the relief as one for declaration that the sale deed is null and void. In substance, the relief sought is one of cancellation of a registered sale deed, and the court fee is required to be computed on the consideration mentioned therein.

4. Learned counsel further submits that deficiency of court fee is one of the specific grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and when such defect