Cement Corporation Of India ... vs Tritiya Milenium Education ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 93 Chatt

                                          1


                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                 WP227 No. 829 of 2022

     •   Cement Corporation Of India Limited C/o Maha Prabandhak, Cement
         Corporation Of India Limited Akaltara Tah. Akaltara, District - Janjgir -
         Champa, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff)
                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

     1. Tritiya Milenium Education Society Registration No. Bil-Dn 2864 Saraf
         House 335 Kranti Nagar Bilaspur 495004, C/o G.S. Patnaik S/o G.K.M.
         Patnaik Secretary Tritiya Milenium Education Seciety Bilaspur C.G.
         Through St. Xavier Group Of School, (Presently Now As St. Francis
         Education Society (Earlwilst Tritiya Milenium Education Society Bilaspur,
         (Chhattisgarh) For St. Xavier Group Of School. (Defendent No. 1)
     2. St. Xavier Higher Secondary School C.C.I. Town Ship C/o Principal G.S.
         Patnaik St. Xavier Higher Secondary School C.C.I. Town Ship Akaltara
         Tah. Akaltara, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Defendent No.
         2)
                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate

S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge Order on Board 05.01.2023

1. This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated

24.09.2022 passed by First Additional District Judge, Janjgir, in Execution

case No.30-A/2014 by which the application under Order 151 of the CPC

for depositing the difference amount of Court fees for the claim amount

for the damages and the amount decreed which has been assessed and

the difference of the amount in which Court fees is to be paid was

assessed to the tune of Rs.2,33,718/- vide judgment dated 30.04.2015 by

the Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir - Champa is dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inspite of the decree

dated 30.04.2015, the respondents have failed to vacate the premises till

30.05.2020 and they have filed MCC No.351 of 2020 for seeking

extension of time to vacate the premises till 30.05.2021. Vide order dated

04.03.2022 the said MCC has been dismissed as having become

infructuous. The respondents had again filed the second MCC

No.454/2022 in which the respondents have clearly stated that the

amount of Rs.8,00,000/- of compensation as awarded by the trial Court

has not been paid only because the petitioner/plaintiff has not complied

with the directions in judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and

till date not deposited the difference of Court fees as assessed in the

judgment and decree. The counsel for the respondents further submits

that if the difference amount of Court fees is deposited, the applicants will

ensure payment of the compensation granted by the trial Court in its

judgment and decree dated 30.04.2015. In said case, the

petitioner/plaintiff has clearly stated that as the executing Court has not

accepted the difference of the Court fees, so the said Court fees could

not be deposited. In MCC No.454 of 2022 vide order dated 16.09.2022,

this Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to approach the trial Court

for deposit of the difference amount of Court fees as assessed by the trial

Court within a period of two weeks. In compliance of such direction, the

petitioner/plaintiff has filed application under Section 151 of the CPC, but

the said application was dismissed by the impugned order, hence this

revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Executing Court

cannot refuse to accept the difference of the Court fees assessed in the

order and judgment dated 30.04.2015, therefore, the impugned order is

not sustainable and prays to quash the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents

annexed with the petition.

5. It is vivid that in compliance of the directions given by the High Court in

MCC No.454 of 2022 and given liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit

the difference amount of Court fees assessed by the trial Court within a

period of two weeks' and in compliance of such direction the

petitioner/plaintiff has moved an application under Section 151 of the

CPC for depositing the deficit Court fees, therefore, the reason assigned

by the Executing Court that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to pay the

Court fees, in such a belated stage and a valuable right was accrued in

favour of the judgment debtor is not acceptable and accordingly, the

impugned order is hereby quashed. The Executing Court is directed to

accept the difference of the Court fees as assessed in the judgment

dated 30.04.2015 in Civil Suit No.30-A of 2014, within a further period of

two weeks.

6. With the aforementioned observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition

stands disposed of.

                           s                                        Sd/-ssddddd

                                                           (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                                                                  Judge



yasmin