MOHD. ALI Vs. MUNNILAL AHIRWAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Adv. for the State/respondent No. 5. Heard on the question of admission. On behalf of the petitioner/defendant No. 1, this petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the order dated 7-1-2014 (Annexure-P-7) passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I, Chhatarpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 1A/2014, whereby, in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff by allowing the application filed under some notification issued by the State of M.P. under section 35 of the Court fees Act, he has been exempted to pay the requisite Court fees according to valuation of the suit.

(2.) Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record argued that on earlier occasion, the alleged sale deed regarding disputed property was executed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of petitioner and subsequently, the respondent No. 1 filed the impugned suit to declare him to be in possession of such property with a further prayer of declaration to declare the aforesaid sale deed to be ab intio void. In such suit, according to existing provisions, the respondent No. 1 was bound to value the suit and pay the ad valorem Court fees on the valuation of the consideration of sale deed, the suit has been Rs. 8,00,000/-, the valuation of the consideration of sale deed, but instead to pay the Court fees, accordingly the respondent No. 1 has filed the aforesaid application under section 35 of the Court fees Act for giving exemption from payment of Court fees on the ground that he being from the community of Scheduled Castes, having the income not more than 12,000/- per annum, is entitled for exemption to pay the Court fees under the notification issued under the aforesaid provision. In support of such contention, income certificate issued by the Tehsildar was also produced before the trial Court. On behalf of the petitioner instead to file any reply of such application, such prayer of respondent No. 1 was opposed in the written statement, with the pleading that respondent is having huge property and income. As per case of petitioner, the trial Court without holding any enquiry on such question on the basis of Tehsildar certificate has allowed the impugned application and exempted the respondent No. 1 from payment of requisite Court fees in the suit. With these submissions, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the impugned application by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have perused the aforesaid notification as well as the copy of the plaint and other documents placed on the record.