1 2025:CGHC:10657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 199 of 2025  Smt. Shushila Samudre W/o Late Jitendra Samudre Aged About 48 Years R/o New Loco Colony Qr. No. 661/1 Police Station Sirgitti Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Archana Samudre W/o Late Jitendra Samudre Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar Police Station Torwa Near Marimai Mandir Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1 ) 2. Shivanchi D/o Late Jitendra Samudre Aged About 23 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar Police Station Torwa Near Marimai Mandir Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (In Impugned Order D/o And Age In Not Mentioned ) (Defendant No. 2 ) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the Court below. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 04.02.2025 and allow the application of exemption for payment of court fees filed by the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.11 09:45:54 +0530 2 the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration and partition against the respondents. In the plaint, the petitioner pleaded that she is the legally married wife of the Late Jitendra Samudre and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2005. It is further pleaded that the Late Jitendra Samudre was working as a Sanitation Worker in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and he died while he was staying along with the petitioner. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 1 was residing along with Late Jitendra Samudre as his wife, but she was not the legally married wife of Late Jitendra Samudre. It is also pleaded that Succession Case No. 13/2022 was filed by the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate and the same was dismissed on 31.01.2024. 3. The plaintiff further pleaded that she is entitled to receive half share of the terminal benefits of Late Jitendra Samudre according to provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; therefore, a suit was filed for partition. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff moved an application under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act on the ground that she is poor and widow lady and she has no means of income to pay Court fees. 4. The defendants filed their reply to that application and denied its averments. 5. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 01.04.1983 came to a conclusion that the actual income of the petitioner was Rs. 60,000/- per annum according to the income certificate submitted by her; therefore, she is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a widow lady; she has no means of income; according to her 3 income certificate, her income is Rs. 60,000/- per annum, and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 7. I have heard Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. The notification dated 1-4-1983 reads as under: - “In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (No.7 of 1870), the State Government hereby remits in the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court-fees mentioned in Articles 1- A and 2 of the first Schedule and Articles 5, 17 and 21 of the second Schedule to the said Act payable on plaint by the following categories of the persons whose annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources does not exceed rupees six thousand, namely— i) member of Scheduled Tribes; ii) member of Scheduled Castes; iii) minors; iv) women; v) artisan; vi) unskilled labourer; vii) landless labourer; viii) person belonging to the weaker section of the society Explanation—For the purpose of this notification: - 1) 'Member of Scheduled Castes' means a member of any caste, race of tribe or part of or group within caste, race or tribe specified as such with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 341 of the Constitution of India; 2) 'Member of Scheduled Tribes' means a member of any tribal community or part of or group within a tribe or tribal community specified as such with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.” 9. The income mentioned as Rs.6,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.25,000/- by the notification dated 20th June, 2008. A careful perusal of the notification reveals that a person belonging to a particular class as mentioned in the 4 notification, if is earning less than Rs.25,000/- per year, then he would not be required to pay court fees on the plaint 10. Admittedly, the income of the petitioner is Rs. 60,000/- per annum and the benefit of the notification issued on 01.04.1983 can be extended to the person belonging to a particular class as mentioned in the notification if his or her earnings are less than Rs. 25,000/- per annum. 11. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial court and the fact that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 60,000/- per annum, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No. cost(s).S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant