SANDEEP YADU vs NEMSINGH YADU
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
CGHC010092512026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 296 of 2026
1 - Sandeep Yadu S/o Nem Singh Aged About 22 Years Cast-Thethwar, Occupation -
Labour, R/o Village - Baniya, Post - Gaurmati, Tah. - Sahaspur Lohara, Dist -
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. ( Plaintiff)
2 - Smt. Maneesha W/o Jeewan Yadu Aged About 25 Years Cast - Thethwar, R/o
Village - Jaitpuri, Tah- Kunda, Dist - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Nemsingh Yadu S/o Ramcharan Yadu Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 06,
Yadavpara, Thankhamahariya, Tah - Thankhamahriya, Dist - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Mahendra Yadu S/o Late Gaukaran Yadu ( Mother - Smt. Rajbati), Aged About 21
Years R/o Ward No.6, Yadavpara, Thankhamahariya, Tah - Thankhamahriya, Dist -
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Khediya Bai W/o Nemsingh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Baniya, Post -
Gaurmati, Tah - Sahaspur Lohara, Dist - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Dist - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Defendants)
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Shri Sidhant Tiwari, PL
For Respondents-1 and 2 : Shri VA Goverdhan, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
30.10.2026
1. Heard.
Wp227 296 of 2026
2
2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by
the learned Third Civil Judge, Senior Class, District-Bemetara, in Civil suit
No.4A/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under
Section 35 of the Court Fees Act for exemption from payment of court
fees has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are
plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, who were prosecuting a suit for
declaration of title, partition and possession over the suit property, a
house situated at village-Palipar, Tahsil-Sahaspur Lahara and agriculture
land at village-Kurda, Tahsil-Thankhamariya. He would further submit
that earlier also, plaintiffs filed an application under Section 35 of the
Court Fees Act, which was rejected by the learned trial Court on
14.05.2019. Plaintiffs challenged that order before this court in WP227
No.659 of 2019, and it was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2024.
However, liberty was reserved in favour of the plaintiffs to file fresh
application before the concerned trial Court along with necessary
documents and in turn, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide
the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, plaintiffs have filed the
application afresh, supported by income certificate and other relevant
documents, showing that individual income of the plaintiffs is not more
than Rs.25,000/- per year and they come within the purview of notification
issued by the State Government on 01.04.1983 which was amended by
another notification dated 20.06.2008, by which the yearly income of the
Wp227 296 of 2026
3
person concerned has been enhanced up to Rs.25,000/- per year. He
would further submit that women have been completely exempted from
payment of Court fee under said notification and in that view of the
matter, if income of plaintiff-2 has been exempted, the total income of
plaintiff-1 is Rs.25,000/- per year which suffice the requirement of the
notification issued by the State Government for exemption of the court
fees. On due process of law, the plaintiff obtained income certificate
which has been produced before the learned trial Court to show his
financial capacity. Yet, the learned trial Court rejected the application by
taking into consideration the income of both the plaintiffs (1 and 2)
individually and holding that yearly income of the plaintiffs is Rs.50,000/-
per year. He would further submit that learned trial Court has also
observed that provision of Order 33, Rule 2 of the CPC has not been
followed by the plaintiffs and since the yearly income of the plaintiffs is
Rs.50,000/-, which is beyond the permissible limit under the said
notification issued by the State government, therefore, rejected the
application, whereas, income of plaintiff-1 is only should be considered as
the income of the plaintiff-2, being a lady has been exempted under the
notification. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and
jurisdictional error, which is liable to be set aside and the learned trial
court may be directed to exempt the petitioners/plaintiffs from payment of
court fees, register the Civil Suit and to proceed in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2
opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners
Wp227 296 of 2026
4
and would submit that on earlier occasion also, application filed by the
plaintiffs for exemption of court fees has been rejected by the learned trial
Court observing that the plaintiffs are having a pakka house and they
have not demonstrated their yearly income by leading cogent and
documentary evidence, and rejected/dismissed the application filed by
the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. The rejection of their
application has been affirmed by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation in WP227 659 of 2019 also, though liberty was granted in their
favour to file application afresh. He would further submit that plaintiffs are
having sufficient means to earn and having pakka house at village and
plaintiff-1 is employed as car driver with a private person and plaintiff-2 is
earning from tailoring work; therefore, they are having sufficient means to
pay the requisite court fees in the suit. It is also submitted that though
there is exemption for plaintiff-2 under the amended notification dated
20.06.2008, he could not deny but permissible limit is only up to
Rs.25,000/- and if their income is more than that, they would not get any
exemption in payment of court fees. Therefore, learned trial court has
rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners, which is not to be
interfered with.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State also objected the prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case, property involved in the
petition and the financial capacity of the plaintiffs, petitioners are not
entitled for any exemption from payment of court fees.
Wp227 296 of 2026
5
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
7. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioners/plaintiffs,
where their application filed under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act has
been rejected. From perusal of order dated 18.10.2024 passed in
WP227 No.659 of 2019 it transpires that earlier also, plaintiffs have filed
application under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act for exemption from
payment of court fees which was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2019 by
the trial Court, and it was challenged by the plaintiffs in the said writ
petition. While considering the said writ petition, the coordinate Bench of
this court has observed that only income certificate of plaintiff-1 has been
filed and no income certificate of plaintiff-2 has been filed by them.
Hence, by dismissing the said writ petition, plaintiffs were directed to file
fresh application before the concerned trial Court along with necessary
documents which shall be considered and decided in accordance with
law. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed their second application for
exemption from payment of court fees, which has been annexed with the
present petition as Annexure-P4. Though in the application, plaintiffs
have averred that plaintiff-1 is landless person, who is dependent upon
agriculture labour and physically very weak and plaintiff-2 is a home
maker, she also landless person, having minor children. They are not
having sufficient means to earn and their yearly income is not more than
Rs.20-25,000/-, therefore, they are unable to pay the requisite court fees
in the suit. They are claiming partition and separate possession over the
Wp227 296 of 2026
6
suit house, and in absence of the requisite Court fees, they would be
deprived of from the property right, since their yearly income is not more
than Rs.25,000/-, they are entitled for exemption from payment of court
fees. Along with the application, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed their
income certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned.
8. Yearly income of the plaintiffs has been disputed by respondents-1
and 2 by saying that they are having sufficient means to earn more than
Rs.25,000/- per year, having pakka house and other assets, and plaintiff-
1 is an employee as Car Driver with a private person. Plaintiff-2 is also
earning from trailing profession.
9. From perusal of order impugned, it transpires that the learned trial
Court has passed the order considering the documents produced by the
plaintiffs and after hearing them. However, there is no observation that
any report was obtained from the concerned Revenue Officer, or any
other competent officer with respect to individual yearly income of the
plaintiffs, or with respect to income certificate produced by them.
10. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the learned trial
Court should have asked a report from the competent authority with
respect to the yearly income of the plaintiffs as to whether they are
capable to earn more than Rs.25,000/- per year, or not, and by observing
that in the income certificate of the plaintiffs the total income comes
towards Rs.50,000/- per year. This Court has also gone through the order
dated 18.10.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in earlier
Wp227 296 of 2026
7
round of litigation, in which the notification dated 01.04.1983 issued by
the State Government has been observed in paragraph-5. According to
said notification, ‘women’ are exempted from payment of court fees,
whose annual income is not more than Rs.6,000/- per year and by the
subsequent notification dated 20.06.2008, the said amount of Rs.6,000/-
has been enhanced up to Rs.25,000/- per year. Meaning thereby, the
‘women’, whose annual income is not more than Rs.25,000/-, shall be
exempted from payment of court fees.
11. In the present case, plaintiff-2 is a woman, whose annual income
asper her income certificate, is not more than Rs.25,000/-, thus, she is
entitled for exemption from payment of Court fees subject to any other
verification report obtained by the Court. Since the documents and
financial capacity of the plaintiffs have not been examined by the learned
trial Court by calling any report from any competent officer, this court is
inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court by
observing that learned trial Court should have called a report from the
competent revenue authority with respect to yearly income of the
plaintiffs, and then only, proceed further to decide the application filed by
the plaintiffs under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act in accordance with
law.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 is set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court with the observation
that it shall call a report from the competent authority with respect to
Wp227 296 of 2026
8
yearly income of the plaintiffs and then only proceed to decide the
application filed under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act in accordance
with law on its own merits.
13.
With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is allowed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma