1 2025:CGHC:17813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 335 of 2019  Shiv Ram Sahu S/o Indresh Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Romin W/o Indresh Sahu, R/o Village Jodhapur Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---(Plaintiff), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Triloki Ram Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Jodhapur Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---(Defendant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 02-04-2025) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dasrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 15-B/2016 dated 30.03.2019 whereby application preferred U/s 35 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 has been rejected. 2 2) The petitioner, who is a minor aged about seven years filed civil suit through his natural guardian - mother for compensation and damages against the defendant who runs a holler mill. It is averred that on 22.05.2016, minor suffered injury from holler mill due to negligence of the defendant. The suit was valued at Rs. 8,59,000/- and application U/s 35 of the Act, 1870 for exemption from affixing proper court fee has also been moved. 3) Learned trial Court on 19.09.2016 directed the Collector, Dhamtari to place on record the income certificate of the parents of the petitioner (minor). Thereafter, on 30.03.2019, a memo was received from the Collector, Dhamtari wherein it was stated that petitioner’s father is an agricultural labour and is Rs. 30,000/- p.a. Learned trial Court while placing reliance on the notification dated 01.04.1983 and the memo received by the Collector, Dhamtari rejected the application moved by the petitioner. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a minor aged about seven years at the time of accident and the income of the petitioner has to be seem for exemption, not the income of the guardian or family. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Vimlabai Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1997 (1) MPLJ 227. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose. 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 3 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.” 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. 8) In the matter of Vimlabai (supra), High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the word ‘persons’ used in notification dated 01.04.1983 4 whose annual income in relation to the plaint and liability of the Court fee would only mean the plaintiff who is party and would not include any other person who is not party to the suit. 9) However, in the present case, a direction was issued by the learned Trial Court to the Collector, Dhamtari to assess the annual income of the natural guardians/parents of petitioner (minor). A report has been submitted according to which the income of the father of the petitioner(minor) was Rs. 30,000/- per annum in the year 2019. 10) Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court ; the fact that income of natural guardian i.e. father of petitioner (minor) is Rs. 30,000/- 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, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned dated 30.03.2019. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No. cost(s).S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.23 17:59:43 +0530