1 2025:CGHC:16941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 983 of 2019 • Vikas Agrawal S/o Late Shri Maliram Agrawal Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Somya Beauty Parlour, Behind Ramdev Rice Mill, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur , Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Deepa Dewangan W/o Shri Laxman Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Azad Ward, Civil Lines Manendragad, Tehsil And District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 2. Anoop Agrawal S/o Late Maliram Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o A/249, Near Omkareshwar, Temple, House Of Nidhish Choubey, Ageye, Nagar , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Defendants/Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No.3/State : : : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the impugned order dated 23.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Court of learned First Civil Judge Class I, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 38A/2019 (Vikas Agrawal vs. Smt. Deepa Dewangan and others). Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.2 Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit an appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 2. Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an application moved by defendants No. 1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was allowed by the learned trial Court without ascertaining the amount of court fee payable for cancellation of the sale deed. He would further submit that the plaintiff/petitioner is unable to make payment of the court fee in the absence of an appropriate figure. He would also submit that the learned trial Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to make payment of the court fee according to the market value, whereas the petitioner is ready to make payment of the court fee according to the valuation of the sale deed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner may calculate the amount of court fee from the chart given in the Court Fees Act. They would further submit that the petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and he was a party to the sale deed, therefore, according to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112, he is required to pay the ad-valorem court fee. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to make payment of the court fee as per the chart given in the Court Fees Act according 3 to the valuation of the sale deed and the valuation made in the civil suit in this regard. The order passed by the learned trial Court is accordingly modified. 6. With the aforesaid directions(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti