← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/8/2013allowed

Manglu Ram Dead Through Lrs v. Laxmikant Mishra

2018-02-28Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 8 of 2013 Manglu Ram (Died) S/o Dileram Sahu, through legal heirs : 1.(a) - Achchhe Bai W/o Late Manglu Ram Aged About 55 Years 1.(b) - Brihaspati Sahu D/o Late Manglu Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years 1.(c) - Kishan Kumar Sahu S/o Late Manglu Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years 1.(d) - Geeta Kumari D/o Late Manglu Ram Sahu Aged About 21 Years 1.(e) - Smt. Sushil Sahu W/o Harprasad Aged About 32 Years D/o Late Manglu Ram, 1.(f) - Siya Bai Sahu D/o Late Manglu Ram Sahu Aged About 28 Years All R/o Village Kasdol, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

1. Laxmikant Mishra S/o Rajdhar Aged About 40 Years Paras Nagar, Kasdol, P.H.No. 09, Tah. Kasdol, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhttisgarh Through- Collector, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ss For Applicant :

Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocate For Res. No.1:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State :

Shri R.K. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge

Order On Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 28/02/2018

1. This is an application filed by the first defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. He sought to sue an indigent and challenge the decree granted by the trial Court to the first respondent-plaintiff. Initially, the application was not entertained on the ground that it was not presented by the petitioner himself. Thereafter when such application was placed on record, the applicant died. His legal heirs have been brought on record.

2. Hearing the learned counsel for the additional appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Deputy Advocate General, we are of the view that the question whether the original appellant had the means to pay Court fee has to be determined with reference to the date of institution of the MCC and with reference to his means. It is on record that he holds a BPL Ration Card and is also certified to be a physically handicapped person requiring the support of clutches to move around. He is also aged fair enough. We are inclined to take the view that he does not means to pay Court fee of Rs. 91,800/-. Accordingly, we allow this MCC. Office is directed to register the First Appeal.

Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge Kamde