1 2025:CGHC:4284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 74 of 2025 Anita Ratre Wd/o Late Motiram @ Motilal Ratre Aged About 38 Years R/o Lalpur, Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar (C.G.) Present R/o Bineka, Tahsil Mastrui, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Hiradas Ratre S/o Late Beiragi Aged About 80 Years R/o Lalpur, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) 2. Mongra Bai W/o Bahorik Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kosa, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3. Gugan Bai W/o Khorva Tailor Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Raseda, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For State/ Respondent no. 4 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/01/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by 2nd Additional Judge of Civil Judge Class-II, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in CJ/20/2021 whereby petitioner has been directed to pay the additional court fee for the relief prayed in the 2 amendment application as per valuation. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was moved for amendment whereby the sale-deed executed by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondents No. 2 and 3 has been challenged. He contends that learned trial Court allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly and affix Court Fee accordingly. He argues that the order passed by learned trial Court with regard to valuation of Court Fee is erroneous. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court has not directed plaintiff/ petitioner to pay requisite Court Fee or Ad-Valorem fee and plaintiff has only been directed to value the suit properly and pay Court Fee accordingly, therefore, this petition is misconceived. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that learned trial Court has only directed plaintiff to value the suit properly and pay Court Fee, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 6) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya