NEELAM DAGLA Vs. SARWAN GOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the IX Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the suit preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that proper court fee has not been paid despite opportunity was given for the same.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein the suit was valued @ Rs.18 lakhs. In the said suit, the plaintiff has made averments to the effect that she purchased two different lands at village Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur from the defendant/ respondent No.1 by payment of full consideration of sale deed. Thereafter, it is also specifically averred that she was placed in possession of the said land. It is contended that despite the sale deed having been executed and were admitted before the Revenue Authority after a period of time, the respondent at the instance of the outsiders filed a criminal case stating that fraud was played and and a criminal complaint was filed wherein by an order dated 17.09.2003 the Additional Sessions Judge despite the fact that the plaintiff/appellant was not a party has made an observation against the plaintiff. The plaintiff further averred that the cost of land is Rs.17-18 lakhs and declaration was sought for with an injunction. The declaration was valued as Rs.500/- and the court fee of Rs.60/- was affixed whereas for the purpose of evaluation, the suit land was valued @ Rs.18 lakhs. The court below held that the suit is valuated @ Rs. 18 lakhs and granted few dates to pay the court fee and when the court fee is not paid, eventually dismissed the suit on 18.07.2018 which is subject matter of appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the suit was valued at Rs.18 lakhs whereas for the injunction, it was valued as Rs.500/- and the fixed court fee of Rs.50/- was paid. He further submits that as per section 7 (iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act since no consequential relief was prayed, the plaintiff was not required to pay the ad-valorem court fee and he was free to evaluate the plaint as per his choice. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2015(5) C.G.L.J., 543 Smt. Urvashi Bai Sharma v. Smt. Indumati Sharma.