1 2025:CGHC:1558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 291 of 2025  Banshilal Sahu S/o Dhelu Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Magarload, Ward No. 13, Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Neeta Jaiswal W/o Mukesh Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Indian Petrol Pump Ke Pass, Gupta Kirana And Electronic Store Ke Samne Bramhdev Colony, Bhathagaon, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mukesh Jaiswal R/o Indian Petrol Pump Ke Pass, Gupta Kirana And Electronic Store Ke Samne Bramhdev Colony, Bhathagaon, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Leena Sahu W/o Nagendra Sahu R/o Ward No. 13, Nagar Panchayat Magarload, Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4. Nagendra Sahu S/o Budhram R/o Ward No. 13, Nagar Panchayat Magarload, Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5. Khumendra Kumar Sahu S/o Banshilal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Sinchai Colony, Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Durga Bai W/o Dilip Kothari R/o Ward No. 2, Nagar Panchyat Magarload, Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 03-04-2025 2 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kurud, District Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2023 dated 14.04.2025 whereby application preferred U/o 33 Rule 1(a) of CPC has been rejected. 2) The petitioner filed civil suit for recovery of possession and injunction against the respondents pertaining to land bearing Khasra No. 1631/1 ad-measuring 60 sq. mt. Situated at Ward No. 13, Nagar Panchayat and Teh.- Magarload, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) and court fee of Rs. 20,200/- was affixed. 3) The petitioner also filed an application U/o 33 Rule 1(a) of CPC for exemption from affixing proper court fees on the ground that he is a poor person solely dependent upon the rental income of the shop constructed over suit land. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 01.04.1983, concluded that the actual income of the petitioner as per the income certificate is Rs. 60,000/- per annum; therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor villager who is solely dependent on rental income coming from the shop constructed over suit land; according to his income certificate, his income is Rs. 60,000/- per annum, and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7) The notification dated 1-4-1983 reads as under: - 3 “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.” 8) 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 notification, if is earning less than Rs.25,000/- per year, then he would not be required to pay court fees on the plaint. 4 9) 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 a person belonging to a particular class as mentioned in the notification if his or her earnings are less than Rs. 25,000/- per annum. 10) 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 with the order impugned dated 14.01.2024. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No. cost(s).S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya