Duli Chand & Ors vs Shri Bans Guru Gaddi Kabir Dharam Dass ... on 3 May, 2016

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Duli Chand & Ors vs Shri Bans Guru Gaddi Kabir Dharam Dass ... on 3 May, 2016

Bench: Amit Rawal

CR No.7152 of 2013 (O&M)                                         {1}


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                       CR No.7152 of 2013 (O&M)
                                       Date of decision:03.05.2016

Duli Chand and others                               ... Petitioner

                         Vs.

Shri Bans Guru Gaddi Kabir Dharam Dass
Bansawali Kabir Dharam Nagar Damakhera
District Raipur                        ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

1.          Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
            see judgment?
2.          To be referred to reporters or not?
3.          Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
          for the petitioners.

            Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate, for
            Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
            for the respondent.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 19.10.2013 (Annexure P-5) allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the instance of the respondent-defendant, calling upon the petitioner-plaintiffs to pay the Court fee as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of Indian Court Fees Act.

Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits that his clients are willing to pay the Court 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:53 ::: CR No.7152 of 2013 (O&M) {2} fee as per the amendment caused by the State of Haryana in the Court Fee Act, but not the ad valorem court fee.

Mr. R.D.Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant submits that ratio decidendi culled out by the Single Bench of this Court by applying the amended provisions caused by the State of Haryana in the Court Fee Act rendered in Beena and others vs. Rajinder Kumar and others 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 449 is no longer a good law in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Minder and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2014(3) R.C.R (Civil) 563, which has been rendered by relying upon ratio decidendi culled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that though the petitioner- plaintiffs are not party to the gift deed, yet they are seeking possession, therefore, they are liable to pay the Court fee as per the provisions of Section 7(v) of Indian Court Fees Act, for seeking possession.

Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and the revision petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 03, 2016 savita 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:54 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court