Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Mehta vs Surinder Kumar (Deceased) Through Lr'S ... on 8 August, 2012
Author: L.N.Mittal
Bench: L.N.Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 7612 of 2010
Date of decision: 8th August, 2012
Surinder Kumar Mehta
........ Petitioner
versus
Surinder Kumar (deceased) through LR's and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jai Deep Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5.
L.N.Mittal,(O&M) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff No. 1 has assailed three orders passed by the trial court.
Petitioner alongwith proforma respondents No. 6 to 8 has filed suit against respondents No. 1 to 5 as defendants for creating new Trust of certain temples and for removing the defendants from possession of the Trust property.
Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar vide order dated 23.02.2007 (Annexure P-1) directed the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency of court fee because the plaintiffs were seeking relief of possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs did not pay the requisite court fee. The plaintiffs reagitated the matter of court fee before the trial court. However, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar vide order dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) again Civil Revision No. 7612 of 2010 -2- directed the plaintiffs to comply with order Annexure P-1 in letter and spirit and to affix the court fee as required on the suit for possession failing which the plaint would be returned under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiffs did not pay the requisite court fee. On the other hand, plaintiffs moved an application alleging that no further court fee is required to be paid being religious property. The application was resisted by the defendants. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar vide order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) observed that plaintiffs had already been directed vide orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 to pay the requisite court fee but they have not done so. Consequently, the plaint has been ordered to be returned. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No. 1 has filed this revision petition to challenge the aforesaid orders (Annexures P-1 to P-3).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The basic order under challenge in the revision petition is order dated 23.02.2007(Annexure P-1) requiring the plaintiffs to pay requisite court fee. The instant revision petition, however, was filed on 15.11.2010 i.e. almost three years 9 months after order Annexure P-1 was passed by the trial court. Consequently, the instant revision petition is barred by delay and laches. Not only this, even order Annexure P-2 again directing the plaintiffs to pay requisite court fee was passed on 26.09.2008. The instant revision petition was filed almost 2 years 2 months even Civil Revision No. 7612 of 2010 -3- after passing of the said order. It is manifest that the revision petition qua orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 was filed highly belatedly and is consequently barred by delay and laches. Order Annexure P-3 is only consequential order because the plaintiff failed to pay requisite court fee as per initial order Annexure P-1. The trial court instead of returning the plaint should have, however, rejected the plaint for non payment of the requisite court fee.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed being barred by delay and laches.
[L.N.MITTAL] JUDGE 8th August, 2012 Shivani Kaushik