Rahul Shukl v. Kumari Dipti Shukl

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 150 of 2019 Rahul Shukl, Son of Manoj Kumar Shukl, Aged about 39 years, R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, At present, R/o C51, GMDC, Post ATPS Colony, District Kachh (Gujarat), 370602. ---Applicant

Versus

1. Kumari Deepti Shukl, Daughter of Late Santosh Kumar Shukl, Aged about 18 years, Resident of Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Manoj Kumar Shukl, Son of Late Chandra Shekhar Shukl, Aged about 65 years, Resident of Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, At present Ramanujam Apartment, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Meera, Daughter of Late Chandra Shekhar Shukl, Wife of Shri Dinesh Thakur, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Juni Hatri, Lohar Chowk, Old Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Smt. Poonam Shukl, Widow of Late Santosh Kumar Shukl, Aged about 34 years.

5. Kumari Richa Shukl, Daughter of Late Santosh Kumar Shukl, Aged about 7 years.

6. Kumari Deepika Shukl, Daughter of Late Santosh Kumar Shukl, Aged about 7 years.

7. Guruprasad Shukl, Son of Late Santosh Kumar Shukl, Aged about 05 years.

No. 5 to 7 are minors through their guardian mother - Smt. Poonam Shukl, Widow of Late Santosh Kumar Shukl, Aged about 34 years. Respondents No. 4 to 7 are residents of Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Non-applicants

For Applicant :

Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Non-applicants :

Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 27/08/2019

1. This review petition has been filed by the applicant herein for modification of ex-parte order dated 15/02/2019 passed by this Court in WP227 No. 116 of 2019.

2. This Court, vide order dated 15/02/2019, had granted liberty to defendant No. 4/non-applicant No. 1 herein to move an application before the trial Court for deciding the issue of valuation and Court fee as a preliminary issue in accordance with law.

3. It is made clear that this Court had not directed that the issue of valuation be decided as a preliminary issue. It is for the trial Court to consider and decide the said application moved by defendant No. 4/ non-applicant No. 1 herein, if any, in accordance with law. This Court has also not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

4. Accordingly, the review petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet