Advocates:
['HAMIDA SIDDIQUI', '', 'RAGHVENDRA VERMA', 'A G', '', 'ABHISHEK SARAF']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Judgment reserved on 13.07.2016

Judgment delivered on 19.09.2016

WP227 No. 1005 of 2015

1.

Kalapataru Sales Private Limited, 52, Western Street

Kolkata (W.B.) 700012, Through : The Director Sanjeev

Saravagi Son Of Vijay Kumar Saravagi, Aged About 39

Years, R/o. Sadar Bazar Raigarh, Tahsil And District

Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)...................( Plaintiff)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

Deepak Agrawal S/o Late C.B. Agrawal, Aged About 47

Years R/o Katararoad Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh)..................( Defendant)

2.

M/s.Chidipal Builders & Contractors Private Limited,

Through The Director Ashish Chidipal Son Of Mahesh

Chidipal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh)..........................( Defendant)

3.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh).....................( Defendant)

---- Respondents

And

WP227 No. 978 Of 2015

1.

Kalapataru Sales Private Limited 52, Western Street Kolkata

(W. B.) 700012, Through : The Director Sanjeev Saravagi

Son Of Vijay Kumar Saravagi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o.

Sadar Bazar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh)..........................( Plaintiff)

---- Petitioner

Vs

1.

Mukesh Kumar Chouradiya S/o Kamalchand Chouradiya,

Aged About 39 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o. Aishwarya

Residency Raipur (Chhattisgarh)........................(Defendant)

2

2.

M/s.Chidipal Builders & Contractors Private Limited,

Through The Director Ashish Chidipal Son Of Mahesh

Chidipal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh)..........................( Defendant)

3.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh).....................( Defendant)

---- Respondent

For Petitioner

Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate

For Respondent No.1

Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate

For Respondent/State

Shri Syed Majid Ali, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

C A V Order

1.

In both the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed

by the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem

Court fees on the plaint. The direction has been issued

while considering the respondent No.1/defendant No.1’s

prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ henceforth) for

declaration that the petitioner is in possession and title

holder of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9-4-2010

purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the

defendant No.1 is null and void being forged, therefore, not

binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for issuance of permanent

injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from interfering with

the plaintiff’s possession has also been made in the pliant.

3

2.

It is averred in the plaint that the suit land involved in WP227

No.978 of 2015 was purchased by the plaintiff on

29-10-2007 & 31-10-2007, whereas the suit land in WP227

No.1005 of 2015 was purchased on 31-10-2007. The

defendant No.2 M/s Chidipal Builders & Contractors Private

Limited had prior acquaintance, business terms as a relative

of the plaintiff, therefore, for affecting mutation the plaintiff

handed over his photographs and original sale deed to the

defendant No.2, however, in July, 2011 he came to know

about the fraudulent sale deed when he requested the

defendant No.2 for handing over the original sale deed. At

that time, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the

defendant No.2 has forged his signature and executed the

sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 whereas, as a

matter of fact, the petitioner/plaintiff has never executed the

sale deed.

3.

The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of declaration at

the rate which is mentioned as sale consideration in th