Gangaram Vs Junior Engineer Takhatpur

¶1

1

CGHC010189802017

2026:CGHC:27581

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCC No. 373 of 2017

¶7

1 - Gangaram S/o Late Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 19 Years

¶8

2 - Faguram S/o Late Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Applicant No.1 Gangaram S/o Late Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 19 Years,

¶9

Both R/o Devrikhurd Tahsil And Thana Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Applicants/plaintiffs

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Junior Engineer Takhatpur Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Limited, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 - Executive Engineer, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Limited, Mungeli, District Mungeli.

¶14

3 - Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Limited, Through Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Tifara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents/defendants

¶17

2

¶18

For Applicants :	Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 :	Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Aditi Parakh, Advocate.
For Respondent :	Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer.
No.4/State

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

03/07/2026

¶22

Heard on IA No.02/2026, application for exemption from payment of Court fee along with appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that Niranjan Yadav, who was elder brother of the applicants, died due to electrocution on 29.8.2006. The deceased was unmarried, therefore, his mother (Parvati Bai) filed a civil suit before the learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur seeking compensation of Rs.4.65 lakhs. However, during pendency of the said suit, Parvati Bai died, therefore, her sons i.e. applicants herein were impleaded as her Legal Heirs and they contested the suit. Learned trial Court allowed the suit in part and granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

¶24

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the applicants have filed first appeal along with an application under Order XLIV Rule 1 read with Order XXXIII Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission

¶25

3

¶26

to file appeal as pauper.

¶27

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the deceased died due to electrocution, therefore, in light of Notification F.No.9-2-86-B-XXI dated 2^nd August, 1986, the applicants are entitled to get exemption from payment of Court fee. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment dated 27.1.2022 rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in FA No.63/2021 in the matter Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Vs. Smt. Hemlata Netam and others .

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents oppose the submission made by the applicants.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Though the applicants/proposed appellants have filed an application under Order XLIV Rule 1 of CPC for filing the appeal as pauper/indigent person but the deceased died due to electrocution and the learned Division Bench of this Court in FA No.63/2021 parties being Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Hemlata Netam and others , while quoting Notification F.No.9-2-86-B-XXI dated 2^nd August, 1986, and various judgments, has held that claim made in death case, which occurred owing to electrocution, would be exempted from Court fees pursuant to notification dated 2-8-1986. Thus, in light

¶31

4

¶32

of aforesaid law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the applicants/proposed appellants are entitled to get exemption from payment of Court fee.

¶33

In the result, this MCC is allowed, not under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 rather in light of the Notification and judgments referred to above. Consequently, the applicants/proposed appellants are held entitled to get exemption from payment of Court fee required for the memorandum of appeal.

¶34

The Registry is directed to register the Memo of Appeal filed by the applicants along with application under Order XLI Rule 3-A of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act and list it before the appropriate Bench having roster.

¶35

Sd/ Digitally signed by MOHD MOHDAKHTAR (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) AKHTAR KHAN KHAN Date:2026.07.07 13:15:43 Judge +0530

¶36

Khan

Gangaram v. Junior Engineer Takhatpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram v. Junior Engineer Takhatpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Reema Yadu Vs Gautam Yadu

Smt. Savita Rajput Vs Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

Sukhan Say Sidar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. M.D Tendway Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Varun Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh