1 2025:CGHC:14734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 265 of 2025  Ramsnehi S/o Ajavram Aged About 35 Years Caste- Kashyap (Kurmi), R/ O Village- Kuriyari, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vikas Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu Aged About 35 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Godhna, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), (Defendants) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 27-03-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ or writs/ order or orders to quash the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Class Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh in civil suit filing No. 61/ 2024, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.01 14:25:35 +0530 2 petition, may also be granted. “ 2) The petitioner/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 61/2024 before the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Class- Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa for the specific performance of contract pertaining to Khasra Nos. 1035 and 3326/1, total ad-measuring 0.0560 hectares situated at Village Godhana, Teh.- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir Champa, valuing the suit at Rs. 7, 50,000/-. 3) The plaintiff also filed an application U/s 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for exemption from affixing proper court fees on the ground that he is a poor person belonging to the OBC category, working as a Labourer. 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 as per the income certificate was 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 works as a labourer; he has a meagre income; 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: - “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 3 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 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. 4 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 02.12.2024. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No. cost(s).S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya