JAGDISH Vs. LOBHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Class -II, Kasrawad in Civil Suit No. 57A/14 directing the petitioner to pay appropriate court fees on the amount of the award that is being sought by the present petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner owns and is in possession of the suit land adjoining to the land belonging to respondents No. 1 & 2 Lobhiram and Atmaram. However the suit land was wrongly demarcated and marked in the revenue map and shown as land of respondents No. 1 & 2. The Land Acquisition Officer along with the other respondents awarded compensation for acquisition of the petitioner's land to respondents No. 1 & 2. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Tehsildar, Khasrawad for correcting the revenue records. It was vehemently urged by the Counsel that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land since a long time and the only relief that the petitioner was seeking is that respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 be prevented/stopped from acquiring the suit land without proper verification. However, it came about that the petitioner valued the suit at Rs.1,000/ - for the relief of declaration and at Rs.100/ - for permanent injunction and paid a court fee of Rs.1100/ -. Hence respondents No. 1 & 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 seeking dismissal of the suit and it is in this light that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Court. The trial Court held that the plaint of the present petitioner lacked in particular materials and the petitioner was himself not sure regarding the amount of land or compensation that he is claiming and hence has inappropriately valued the suit and by the impugned order directed that the suit be valued properly and appropriate court fees be paid and hence the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and submitted that there could be no exemption with regard to payment of court fees and if the petitioner had failed to value his claim in the suit appropriately then there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. He prayed that there was no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed.