1 CGHC010434722025 2026:CGHC:31805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1065 of 2025 1 - Santoshkumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Laxmiprasad Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o HIG 12, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1). ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Geeta Gupta D/o Late Shri Laxmiprasad Sahu Through Husband Madanlal Gupta, R/o Rest House Road, Near State Bank, Ward No.4, Gaurela (Pendraroad), Tahsil Pendraroad District Gaurella Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Laxmiprasad Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Neelam Foam House, Beside Dubey Hospital, Telipara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) 3 - Kamla Devi W/o Late Laxmi Prasad Sahu Aged About 80 Years R/o Through Santosh Sahu HIG 12, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Died) (Defendant No. 3) 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 4) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate. For State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 24.07. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the 10th District Judge, Bilaspur, in MJC (Civil) INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.28 11:31:22 +0530 2 No.406/2024 whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short, the Act, 1870) has been allowed and she has been exempted from payment of court fees in the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is defendant No.1 before the trial court and he is the brother of plaintiff. The plaintiff Geeta Gupta filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of the suit property shown in Schedule-A ,B,C & D annexed with the plaint. She valued the civil suit to Rs.1,47,97,340/-. The plaintiff claimed that she is the real sister of the defendant No.1 to 3 and after death of their father Laxmi Prasad Sahu on 07.04.2014, the defendant No.3 got her name mutated alone in the revenue records of the suit property and denied to give any share over the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal against mutation order before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, however, the said appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation and therefore the plaintiff has filed a suit. He would further submit that in the suit the plaintiff is claiming exemption from court fees, however, she is not entitled for exemption for the reason that she is working as Stamp Vendor and earning sufficient amount i.e. more than 25,000/- per year and she is not entitled for exemption under the notification dated 01.04.1983 issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter notification issued by the Chhattisgarh Government dated 20.06.2008 by which the annual income of the person concerned was enhanced from Rs.6000/- to Rs.25,000/-, however, the report of District Collector is erroneous for the reason that the plaintiff has been allotted shop at 3 Gaurella, however, the same has been suppressed by the plaintiff in her affidavit submitted before the trial court in support of her application. The Additional Collector has also not considered the allotment of said shop and has stated in his report dated 02.04.2025 that no any immovable property was found in possession of the plaintiff and she is totally dependent upon her husband, whereas, from the document filed by the petitioner annexed at Page No.37, it clearly reveals that plaintiff is the Stamp Vendor at Pendra Road and her Stamp vending license was renewed from 2025 to 2028. Her husband is a practicing Advocate at Pendra Road and she is not dependent upon her husband. The yearly income of the plaintiff has not been properly considered by the Collector. The daughter of plaintiff is in Judicial Service and therefore the revenue authorities are in favour of plaintiff on their influence. Though the plaintiff is clamming partition and separate possession and she valued the suit property with respect to her share, however, she is having sufficient income to pay the court fee and only thereafter she is entitled to prosecute her suit, yet, the trial court has exempted the plaintiff from payment of court fee. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the plaintiff may be directed to pay the requisite court fee in the suit. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the payment of court fee is the matter between the plaintiff and the State and the defendant has no right to challenge the same. Though he has already raised an objection and that has been decided by the trial court, but his right is confined only to raise an objection. The trial court 4 after calling the inquiry report about yearly income of the plaintiff, considered the case and the report submitted by the District Collector and passed the impugned order exempting the plaintiff from payment of court fees in the suit. She would further submit that the position would not change even if the trial court pass any order for payment of court fee. The plaintiff has been exempted from payment of court fee by extending the benefit under Section 35 of the Act, 1870. From the certificate issued by the District Collector, all the relevant materials have been considered regarding income of the plaintiff and a report dated 02.04.2025 has been submitted before the trial court which has rightly been considered while considering the application under Section 35 of the Act, 1870. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2&3 are in support of the petitioner and would submit that the plaintiff was allotted a shop at Gaurella and she is earning more than Rs.25000/- per year. Her husband is also a practicing Advocate and a Notary at Pendra Road and the daughter of plaintiff is in Judicial Service and thus she is having sufficient source of her income to pay the court fee. The benefit under Section 35 of the Act, 1870 would be extended only if the annual income of the person concerned does not exceed Rs.25000/- per year, however, in the present case, the annual income of the plaintiff is more than 25000/-. Even the plaintiff has suppressed allotment of a shop at Gaurella. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and 5 illegality and they have no objection in the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The issue involved in the present writ petition is with respect to payment of requisite court fee in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the real sister of defendants No.1 to 3 and she is claiming partition and separate possession of the suit land. She valued the suit for her share of the property i.e. Rs.1,47,97,340/- and required to pay requisite court fee of Rs.5,03,721/-. In her application filed under Section 35 of the Act, 1870, she averred that she is a part time Stamp Vendor and in the financial year 2019-20 she earned only Rs.900/- throughout the year. Her income is not more than Rs.25000/- per year. Therefore, she is entitled for benefit under notification dated 01.04.1983 issued under Section 35 of the Act, 1870. 7. Initially, the annual income of the person concerned was fixed as Rs.6000/-, however, vide notification dated 20.06.2008 it was enhanced to Rs.25000/-. The notification reads as under : “न्यायालय फीस से छू ट सम्बन्धी अधिधसूचनाएँ अधिधसूचना फा.क्र. 9-1-83-बी-इक्कीस, दिनांक 1 अप्रैल, 1983-न्यायालय फीस अधिधदिनयम, 1870 (1870 का सं.17) की धारा 35 द्वारा प्रत्त शदि%यों का प्रयोग करते हुए राज्य सरकार, सम्पूर्ण/ मध्यप्रेश राज्य में, दिनम्नलिललि3त वग5 के व्यदि%यों द्वारा, जि8नकी वार्षि:की आय, वा-प्रस्तुधित के ठीक पूव/वत> दिनांक को समस्त स्रोतों से [पच्चीस ह8ार] रुपये से अधिधक नहीं है, उपरो% अधिधदिनयम की प्रथम अनुसूची के अनुच्छे 1-क तथा 2 तथा दिद्वतीय अनुसूची के अनुच्छे 5, 17 तथा 21 के अधीन वापत्रों पर ेय फीस का परिरहार करती है, अथा/त्- (एक) अनुसूधिचत 8ाधितयों के सस्य 6 (ो) अनुसूधिचत 8न8ाधितयों के सस्य (तीन) अवसस्क (चार) मदिहलाएँ (पाँच) शिशल्पी (छः) अकु शल श्रदिमक (सात) भूदिमहीन श्रदिमक (आठ) समा8 के कम8ोर वग5 के व्यदि% स्पष्टीकरर्ण-इस अधिधसूचना के प्रयो8नों हेतु- (एक) "अनुसूधिचत 8ाधितयों का सस्य" का अथ/ है दिकसी 8ाधित, प्र8ाधित या 8न8ाधित या दिकसी 8ाधित, प्र8ाधित या 8न8ाधित के भाग या में के समूह का सस्य जि8से भारत के संदिवधान के अनुच्छे 341 के अधीन मध्यप्रेश राज्य के सम्बन्ध में इस प्रकार दिवदिनर्षिष्ट दिकया गया हो; (ो) "अनुसूधिचत 8न8ाधितयों का सस्य" का अथ/ है दिकसी 8न8ाधित या 8न8ाधित समूह या दिकसी 8न8ाधित या 8न8ाधित-समूह के भाग या में के समूह का सस्य जि8से भारत के संदिवधान के अनुच्छे 342 के अधीन मध्यप्रेश राज्य के सन्भ/ में इस प्रकार दिवदिनर्षिष्ट दिकया गया हो। [म.प्र. रा8पत्र (असाधारर्ण) दिनांक 1-4-1983 पृष्ठ 1602 पर प्रकाशिशत]” 8. From the notification it is clear that a person whose annual income is not more than 25,000/-, is entitled for exemption from payment of court fee. In the said notification, the ladies are also included whose annual income is not more than Rs.25,000/-. In the report of Collector, Gaurella Pendra Marwahi dated 02.04.2025 the annual income of the plaintiff has not been assessed, but it has been reported that the plaintiff does not possess any immovable property and she is dependent upon her Husband. However, from the document annexed at page No.36 of the petition it transpires that she was allotted shop No.1 at Shopping Complex No.2 at Gaurella. Further, though from page No.37 of the petition it transpires that Stamp Vendor license was 7 issued on 29.04.2025 in favour of the plaintiff, but as per report of Collector it transpires that in para 1 it has been reported that she is the house maker and has no independent source of income and completely dependent upon her Husband, which is contrary to the material produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 9. The trial court has also observed that the Collector’s report which was prepared by a responsible revenue officer after due inquiry cannot be brushed aside merely on vague allegation of incompleteness. However, there is no specific report of the income of the plaintiff whether her annual income is more than Rs.25000/- or less than Rs.25000/-. Further, from perusal of the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 35 of the Act, 1870, it transpires that she has not disclosed about her immovable property i.e. shop allotted at Gaurella and only disclosed the annual income of the year 2019-20 from her stamp vending business. This stamp vending business was run by the plaintiff after obtaining the relevant stamp papers from District Treasury, however, the said fact also has not been considered by the District Collector while submitting report dated 02.04.2025 and therefore it transpires that the trial court has passed the order on insufficient material produced before him in the suit either by the plaintiff or by the District Collector regarding income of the plaintiff. 10. True it is that the matter of payment of court fee is in between the plaintiff and the State, however, the defendant has a right to raise an objection and if objection has been raised, it has to be decided by the court concerned in accordance with law. The notification dated 01.08.1983 as well as amended notification dated 20.06.2008 provides 8 ladies also to be entitle for exemption from payment of court fee with a rider that her income should not be exceeded Rs.25000/- per year immediately preceding from the date of filing of the suit, however, there is no cogent material to consider that the plaintiff have no income of more than Rs.25000/-per year preceding the date of filing of suit and the order of the trial court appears to be based on insufficient material. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the trial court is not sustainable. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.09.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for calling a fresh report from the District Collector with respect to annual income of the plaintiff and thereafter to decide the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 35 of the Act, 1870 seeking exemption from payment of court fee, afresh. 12. The defendants are entitled to raise their objection, if any, on the report, to be submitted by the District Collector, or material produced by the plaintiff in support of her case. The Trial court shall decide the application in accordance with law on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder