Chattisgarh High Court
Shouki vs Nakul on 12 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FAM No. 54 of 2018
1. Shouki S/o Sukhdev Aged About 40 Years R/o Viilage
Chuhakimar (Bhendra) Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Shaymlal S/o Barkash Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Chuhakimar (Bhendra), Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Gangaram S/o Barkash Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Chuhakimar (Bhendra), Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Minor Pappu Aged About 13 Years Through Mother Chhamoti,
R/o Village Chuhakimar (Bhendra), Tahsil Gharghoda, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
5. Deshiram S/o Dokari Aged About 65 Years R/o Village
Chuhakimar (Bhendra), Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
6. Laxman S/o Dokari, Through (Case Is Disposed Off As
Compromise)
7. Bundkuwar W/o Late Ram Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o
Behind Jail, Raigarh, Pragati Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
8. Lochan Singh S/o Late Ram Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o
Behind Jail, Raigarh, Pragati Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
9. Dinesh Singh S/o Late Ramsingh Aged About 37 Years R/o
Behind Jail, Raigarh, Pragati Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Nakul S/o Mangal Chouhan R/o Village Chuhakimar (Bhendra),
Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. Laxman S/o Dokari Through (Case Is Disposed Off As
Compromise) R/o Behind Jail, Raigarh, Pragati Nagar, Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Jeetan S/o Sukhdev Aged About 45 Years Through (Case Is
Disposed Off As Compromise) R/o Behind Jail, Raigarh, Pragati
Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
4. Kirtan S/o Sukhdev Aged About 43 Years Through (Case Is
Disposed Off As Compromise) R/o Behind Jail, Raigarh, Pragati
Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh .
---- Respondents
For Appellant : None
For Respondent : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande and Mr.
Anshuman Sharma, Adv.
2
DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy, J.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Order on Board
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy, J.
12.11.2021
1. The present is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894. The appeal has been preferred against
the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 passed by the
First Additional District Judge, Raigar in Mis. Civil Suit No.
48/2014.
2. The appeal was filed on 21.02.2018. When the appeal was
filed at the first instance itself, the Registry of this Court had
pointed out the default of not affixing of adequate Court fees
inasmuch as there was a deficit of Rs. 77,659/-. The default
pointed out by the Registry was objected too by the
petitioner and the matter came up for hearing on the said
issue on 28.08.2018. Further, considering the submission and
contention put forth on either side, this Bench has decided
the objection against the appellant holding that they are
liable to pay Court fees as is provided under Article 1(A) of
Scheduled 1 of the Court Fees Act. After deciding the same,
appellant was granted four weeks' time to pay the Court fees
as per the order dated 28.08.2018. Thereafter, the matter
again came up for hearing on 25.09.2018 when the appellant
again prayed for three weeks' time to pay the deficit Court
fees. Within the extended period also the appellant failed to
affix the Court fees. The matter came up again after four
weeks on 26.10.2018. The appellant again prayed for four
weeks' time which was granted. Thereafter, the matter is
being taken up today i.e. after laps of more than two years.
Today also when the matter is taken up, it is found that the
appellant has not affixed the Court fees as required nor is
there any representation on behalf of the appellant.
3. Under the circumstances, this Court is left with no other
option but to dismissed the appeal on the ground of the not
affixing of the proper Court fees required for the
maintainability of the first appeal itself.
4. The appeal accordingly stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
V/-
