2026:CGHC:20794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1280 of 2025

1 - Shrimati Dhritika Verma D/o Radhekumar Verma, W/o Rahul Kumar Baghel Aged About 37 Years R/o G A D Colony Rudri, Quarter Number G-13, Rudri, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Radhekumar Verma S/o Late Sukhiram Verma Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Kesada, Tehsil- Simga, Distsrict - Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 2 - Shrimati Pramila Verma W/o Radhekumar Verma Aged About 55 Years R/o Behind Playhome School, Meera Nagar Shivam City, Saddu, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G.

3 - Nogendra Kumar Verma S/o Radhekumar Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Behind Playhome School, Meera Nagar Shivam City, Saddu, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G.

4 - Swadesh Metallics Private Limited, Through Its Director, Pawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Shri S.R. Agrawal, R/o 7 Hills Colony, R/5 Kranti Nagar, Near Jain Mandir Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, For Respondent-State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

04/05/2026 ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.30

1. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, in Civil Suit No. 08/2025, whereby while considering the application filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., the plaintiff is directed to properly valuate the suit and to pay the proper court fee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. She filed a suit for a declaration of title of her share of the property, partition and separate possession of the suit property. She pleaded in paragraph 4 of the plaint in the suit about the suit properties and according to the pleadings, the 0.860 Hect. of land of Schedule “A” situated at village Kesda, P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, 3.760 Hect. of land of Schedule “B situated at village Kesda, P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, and a double-storied house, Badi, threshing field of Schedule “C” situated at village Kesda, P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, are the suit properties, over which she claimed her 1/4^th share. She claimed that the suit properties are her ancestral properties, but she is deprived from its partition. The defendant No. 1 has sold some part of the suit property to the defendant No. 4 without there being lawful authority to sell the same. She valued her suit at Rs. 2000/- for the declaration of title to the extent of her share over the suit property, Rs. 2000/- for permanent injunction, Rs. 190/- (20 times the land revenue, i.e. Rs. 9.44), and thus the suit is valued at Rs. 4190/- and court fee of Rs. 590/- has been paid by the plaintiff. After service of summons upon the defendant No. 1, he filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. with respect to undervaluation of the suit and payment of deficit court fees. The said application was considered by the learned trial Court on 18.09.2025, and the plaintiff is directed to make good the valuation of the suit and to pay proper court fees. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application filed by the petitioner and directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees in the suit. The suit is for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of the suit property. The house is situated in agricultural land, and therefore, the plaintiff has valued the suit a