Sulochana Jain vs Hetram Lrs Mst Bantul
2023 Latest Caselaw 2773 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                                            ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            MISC. PETITION No. 3329 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SULOCHANA JAIN W/O SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA
                                 JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 HOUSEWIFE R/O WARD NO 8 BEOHARI (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN S/O SHRI KASTOOR
                                 CHANDRA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WARD
                                 NO 8 BEOHARI DISTT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI O.P. DWIVEDI)

                           AND
                           1.    HETRAM LRS MST BANTUL W/O LATE HETRAM,
                                 AGED    ABOUT    66    YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 AGRICULTURIST R/O C/O LATE HETRAM PATEL
                                 VILLAGE BHOGIYA TOLA BEOHARI POLICE
                                 STATION BEOHARI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                 SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. SHAKUNTLA D/O LATE HETRAM, AGED
                                 ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O C/O LATE HETRAM PATEL
                                 VILLAGE BHOGIYA TOLA BEOHARI POLICE
                                 STATION BEHOARI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                 SHAHDOL SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SAVITRI BAI D/O LATE LATE HETRAM, AGED
                                 ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O C/O LATE HETRAM PATEL
                                 VILLAGE BHOGIYA TOLA BEOHARI POLICE
                                 STATION BEHOARI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                 SHAHDOL SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    BEBY BAI D/O LATE LATE HETRAM, AGED ABOUT
                                 30   YEARS, R/O C/O LATE HETRAM PATEL
                                 VILLAGE BHOGIYA TOLA BEOHARI POLICE
                                 STATION BEHOARI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 2/20/2023
6:14:16 PM
                                                      2
                                 SHAHDOL SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    GULBASIYA D/O RAMPRATAP, AGED ABOUT 58
                                 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                                 BEOHARI AT PRESENT MUKAM POST DHOBA
                                 TEHSIL JAISINGHNAGAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    STATE  OF  MADHYA              PRADESH THROUGH
                                 COLLECTOR DISTRICT            SHAHDOL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS ARTI DWIVEDI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
                           (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 EVER AFTER SERVICE)

                                 T h is petition coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

The issue involved in this petition is limited to the question as to whether the appellate Court has exercised its discretion to decide the issue of payment of court fee together with the other issues raised before it by the respondent in their appeal against judgment and decree passed against them by the trial Court.

Facts on record show that respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaring a sale deed null and void. Alongwith other issues, the trial Court also framed an issue of payment of court fee and decided it against the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, holding that proper court fee has not been paid.

Against this judgment and decree, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, Distt Shadol wherein, after making appearance, the petitioner raised an objection that appeal is not maintainable because the trial Court has already decided that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff therein.

The appellate Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner observing that this issue can be conveniently decided alongwith other issues. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI Signing time: 2/20/2023 6:14:16 PM

There appears no illegality, incorrectness or perversity in the order passed by the appellate Court, therefore, this petition sans merit and is stand disposed of.

However, in view of apprehension of the petitioner that while deciding the appeal finally, this issue may skip adjudication, it is observed that the appellate Court shall decide the issue of payment of court fee while adjudicating the appeal on merits.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE vibha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI Signing time: 2/20/2023 6:14:16 PM