Chattisgarh High Court
Anita Bai vs Managing Director on 16 August, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No.325 of 2019
1. Anita Bai W/o Late Dayaram Bareth Aged About 24 Years
2. Deepika Kumari Bareth D/o Late Dayaram Bareth Aged About 6 Years
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Anita Bai, W/o Late Dayaram
Bareth
3. Bhupesh Kumar S/o Late Dayaram Bareth, Aged About 1 Year 6 Month,
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Anita Bai, W/o Late Dayaram
Bareth
(All are r/o Village Jetha, Post Office Lavsara, Police Station Baradwar,
Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G., At Present R/o Village
Khondh, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Managing Director (Manager And Director), C.S.P.D.C.L. Behind
Rajkumar College, Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Engineer C.S.P.D.C.L. Tifra, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Superintendence Engineer (Operation/maintenance) Division,
C.S.P.D.C.L. Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4. Executive Engineer (Operation/maintenance) Division, C.S.P.D.C.L.
Sakti District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5. Assistant Engineer C.S.P.D.C.L. Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
6. Chief Electricity Inspector Bairan Bajar Raipur, Fountain Square,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. Pradeep Sahu S/o Phoolchand Sahu Aged About 22 Years
8. Kishan Bareth S/o Nepal Aged About 23 Years
9. Rathram Bareth S/o Jagdish Prasad Aged About 25 Years
10. Heeralal Bareth S/o Avadh Ram Bareth Aged About 60 Years
11. Smt. Sonmati W/o Heeralal Bareth Aged About 48 Years
(respondents No.7 to 11 are r/o Village Jetha, Post Office Lavsara,
Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
16/08/2021
1. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated
17.01.2019 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sakti,
District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G., dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 35 of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section
151 of C.P.C.
2. The petitioners have filed Civil Suit for compensation under Fatal
Accidents Act claiming a compensation of Rs.51,02,000/-. The petitioner
filed application under Section 35 of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with
Section 151 of C.P.C. praying for exemption in payment of Court fees,
which has been rejected by the impugned order.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned
order is erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The petitioner
had entitlement for exemption from payment of Court fees, which was
proved in the inquiry by the statement of Patwari that the annual income
of the petitioner was below Rs.25,000/-, therefore, she had entitlement
for exemption vide notification of C.G. State No.5838/D-1666/XX-
B/C.G./08.
4. Reliance has been placed on the order of this Court in the case of Smt.
Sarojni Nishad & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh Sibbal & Ors. in W.P.(227)
No.226 of 2018, in which the income of the petitioner was certified to be
Rs.40,000/- even then the Court had ordered for granting exemption to
the petitioner. The present is a similar case, therefore, this petition may
be allowed and relief may be granted to the petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel representing respondents No.1 to 5 opposes the
submissions and submits that the learned trial Court has not committed
any error in passing the impugned order. The annual income of the
petitioner has been certified to be Rs.36,000/-. Therefore, her annual
income is more than Rs.25,000/-, which is the limit prescribed in the
notification dated 20.06.2008. Thus, the impugned order cannot be
interfered with.
6. Considered on the submissions, the petitioner has been provided a
certificate by Nayab Tehsildar, which is annexed with the petition, it
certifies that the income of the petitioner No.1 from all sources is
Rs.36,000/- per annum. In the case of Smt. Sarojni Nishad & Ors.
(supra) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was held that the
certificate given was to certify the income of the plaintiff and family
members which included the brothers. Therefore, the evidence requires
appreciation and on that basis, it was held that the petitioner was
entitled for exemption according to the notification dated 20.06.2008.
This is not so in the present case, the certificate issued by Nayab
Tehsildar certifies the income of the petitioner No.1 only. The petitioner
No.2 and 3 are minor, therefore, there is no question of considering on
their income.
7. The original notification was issued on 01.04.1983, in which the benefit
of exemption from payment of Court Fees under Section 35 of the Court
Fees Act was granted to the persons having income of less than
Rs.6,000/- per annum. That income limit has been revised and extended
to Rs.25,000/- per annum in the subsequent notification dated
20.06.2008. Therefore, the notification speaks of the policy of the State
Government regarding granting exemption to persons who have annual
income of not more than Rs.25,000/- per annum. The notification of the
State Government cannot be interpreted otherwise. The certificate given
in favour of the petitioner is clearly beyond the slab fixed by the
notification dated 20.06.2008. Hence, I am of this view that the judgment
in Smt. Sarojni Nishad & Ors. (supra) cannot be followed in the present
case. Therefore, it is held that the impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity, hence, this petition is dismissed and disposed off.
However, the petitioners have liberty to plead and pray for bringing the
suit as an indigent person under Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
