INTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT v. NON
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. For the reasons hereinabove, the petition being without substance is liabie and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. &. •g&. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge V- ~s.
Judgment
INTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(U/A 227) N0. (3^ OF 2013 PETITIONER: APFLICANT Mukesh Verma, Aged About-48 J.P. Verma, years, S/o- Shri R/o- Tikrapaia, Raipur, Thasil and Disfa-ict- Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON- APPLICANTS S^po^ i^^^^' Rajendra Kumar Verma, Aged About-50 years, S/o- Late Shri J.P. Verma, S.D.O., R/o- New Adarash Nagar, Borsi Chowk, Near Gas Godam, Thasil and District- Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Shakiuitala Devi, Aged About- 74 years, Wd/o- Late Shri J.P. Verma, R/o- Nandi Chowk, Tikarapara^ Thasil and District-Raipiu- (Since dead) (C.G.).
3. Nitin Verma, Aged About- 23 Years, S/o- Shri R.K. Verma, R/o- Near Gas Godam, Borsi Chowk, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION
FARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. PARTICULARS OF THE RESFONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above. "^ -1 .i.^s.^j Sii '^^i -^as-ia&.Si^gS^^i^;;.-;..';...' '—;••:-.-6?*!--. ^v HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 138 of2013; WRiTPETiT!ONUNDIRART!CLE2^70FTHECQN^^ and another. . Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petltioner. Heard on admission. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution Jia assaits the tegality and propriety of the order dated 1.12.2012 ssed by 16 C-ivl! Judge, Class-ll, Raipur in Civil Suit No.14-
Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit claiming re!ief of declaration to the effect that he is entitled for half share In the suit property and also half share of the amount of rent recovered by the defendants i.e. Rs.3,60,000/- without paying ad veloram court fee under Order 7 Rule 4(C) of the Court Fees Act on the amount of share of rent.
Since the reiief of deddration with regard to specified sum of money (ha!f share of the amount of rent which has already been recovered by the defei'idants) has been taimed, which is virtually a relief of recovery of Rs.3,60,000/-, tt fore ad veloram court fee Order 7 Rule l<sf riahti' •>e p iv ad vei passed warrantlng interf'erence :)CI
For the reasons hereinabove, the petition being without substance is liabie and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. &. •g&. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge V- ~s.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.