1 2025:CGHC:10 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1183 of 2024 1. Beena Soni D/o Late Radhelal Soni Aged About 57 Years W/o Ashok Soni, R/o Bramhapuri Biranchi, Near Narayan Mandir, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Santoshi Soni D/o Late Radhelal Soni Aged About 55 Years W/o Hemant Soni R/o Village New Colony, House No. P. R. B. V. 06 F00154 Bandhwapara, Purani Basti, Raipur, Post- Lakhenagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sheetla Soni W/o Shri Rituraj Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohalla Mahamaya Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Nand Kumar Soni S/o Radhelal Soni Aged About 68 Years R/o Mohalla Mahamaya Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Kishan Lal Soni S/o Radhelal Soni Aged About 70 Years 70 Years, R/o Near Old Satbahaniya Mandir, Raipur, Post Lakhenagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Santosh Soni S/o Radhelal Soni Aged About 51 Years R/o Mohalla Mahamaya Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. Nirmala Soni W/o Late Ishwari Prasad Soni Aged About 55 Years R/o Tikrapara, Near Mama-Bhancha Talab, Mannu Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Manish Soni S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o Tikrapara, Near Mama-Bhancha Talab, Mannu Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Sharda Soni D/o Late Radhelal Soni Aged About 61 Years (Wrongly Mentined As W/o Radhelal Soni) R/o Professor Colony, Ring Road No. 1, Near Thakur Marriage Palace Raipur, Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Savita Tahanguriya @ Pooja D/o Late Radhelal Soni Aged About 59 Years R/o Sadar Bazaar, Khairagarh, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, 2 Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Diwan along with Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02 .01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the trial court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned District Judge Mungeli (C.G.) and register the suit civil in case of Beena Soni Vs. Sheetla Soni after allowing the application under order 6 rule 17 & section 35 of the Court Fees Act. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed a Civil Suit for declaration, injunction, partition, separate possession and declaring the sale deed dated 24.05.2023 null and void. They filed applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short “Act, 1870”) and both applications have been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.07.2024. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were directed to pay the requisite Court fees of Rs. 2,80,100/- as proper court fee was not affixed. It is further held that the application under Section 35 of the Court Fee Act moved by the plaintiffs is an afterthought, and thus rejected the application vide order dated 23.11.2024. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned trial Court ought to have called a report from the concerned Collector with regard to financial condition of the petitioners. He further submitted that without following the procedure contemplated under Section 35 of the Act, 1870, the learned trial Court rejected the application moved under Section 35 of the Act 1870. 4. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. It appears that earlier WP 227 No. 990/2024 was filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, District Mungeli, whereby, the plaintiffs were directed to pay the remaining Court fee of Rs. 2,80,100/- out of 3,00,400/-. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have sought relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition of 1/8th share for each plaintiff along with possession. The order passed in WP227 No. 990 of 2024 attained finality as the same has not been challenged. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the plaintiffs moved an application under Section 35 of the Act, 1870, stating that their annual income from all sources is less than 25,000/- and they are entitled to get the benefit of a notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 09.01.1983 and 01.04.1983 as they have no sufficient funds to pay the Court fee. 6. The learned trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2024 held that earlier an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved, wherein, the plaintiffs pleaded that their yearly income is less than 25,000/- and they have no sufficient funds to pay the Court fee. The learned trial Court concluded that the application was an afterthought and thus, rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC as well as Section 35 of the Act, 4 1870. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the earlier order passed by the Learned Trial Court dated 31.7.2024 was challenged before the High Court and that writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners were directed to pay the balance Court Fee but they moved another application under Section 35 of the Court Fee Act claiming therein a similar relief. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have not taken the plea of their poverty and after the dismissal of WP 227 No. 990/2024, they moved the application, which appears to be an afterthought, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the applications moved by the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant