Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sucha Singh & Ors vs Jagpal Singh Alias Jaspal Singh & Ors on 20 February, 2018
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CR No.5508 of 2017 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5508 of 2017
Date of Order: 20.02.2018
Sucha Singh and Ors.
....Petitioners
Versus
Jagpal Singh and Ors
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)
The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.7.2017 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda whereby the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint due to non-payment/affixation of proper court fee in a suit challenging agreement of sale dated 26.3.2014 with respect to land measuring 122 kanals 12-1/2 marlas and subsequent writing dated 14.5.2015 in respect of land measuring 50 kanals 13 marlas, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiffs- respondents instituted the suit with the following prayer:
"Suit for declaration to the effect that agreement for sale dated 26.03.2014 vide which the plaintiffs agreed to sell land measuring 122 kanals 12-1/2 marlas to the defendants i.e 20 kanals comprised in khewat/khatauni no.47/85, khasra numbers 57//7 (8-0), 13 (4-10), 14 (8-
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2018 00:41:36 :::
CR No.5508 of 2017 #2#
0) (1/2th share belonging to Jagpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh, ½ share of Sukhdeep Singh and 1/5th share of Mandeep Singh alias Manjit Singh-plaintiffs no1,3 and
4), land measuring 04 kanals 04 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.336/517, khasra number 55//11/1 (4-4) (belonging to Jagpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh plaintiff), land measuring 12 kanals 0 marlas khewat/khatauni no.360/545, khasra number 58//11/1 (6-6), 11/2 (2-0), 20/1 (4-0) (1/2 share belonging to Jagpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh and 1/2th share belonging to Kulwinder Kaur-plaintiffs), land measuring 13 kanals 12 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.406/603, khasra number 55//21/2 (6-16), 58//1 (6-16) (belonging to plaintiff Jagpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh), land measuring 08 kanals 0 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.72//7/143/18, khasra number 57//6 (8-0), (belonging to plaintiff Jagpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh), land measuring 31 kanals 02 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.56/105, khasra number 57//15 (8-0), 16 (8-0), 17 (8-0), 18 (7-2), (belonging to Jagpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh-plaintiff, land measuring 04 kanals 11-2/2 marlas i.e 3/4th share of land measuring 6 kanals 02 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.3/35,36, khasra number 56//15/2 (0-
12), 16/1 (4-0), 15/2 (1-10), (belonging to the plaintiff Sukhdeep Singh), land measuring 05 kanals 11 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.336/518, khasra number 55//20/1 (5-11), (1/2 share belonging to Sukhdeep Singh and 1/2 share belonging to Mandeep Singh alias Manjit Singh), land measuring 12 kanals 0 marla comprised in khewat/khatauni no.360/546, khasra number 58//10 (8-0), 20/2 (4-0), (belonging to Mandeep Singh alias Manjit Singh plaintiff), land measuring 02 kanals 09 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.407/604, khasra number 55//20/2 (1-17), 21/2 (0-12), 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2018 00:41:37 ::: CR No.5508 of 2017 #3# (½ share belonging to Sukhdeep Singh and 1/2 share belonging to Mandeep Singh alias Manjit Singh-
plaintiffs), land measuring 06 kanals 16 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.246/400, khasra number 57//4 (6-16) (7-10) share belonging to Sukhdeep Singh and 3/10th share belonging to Mandeep Singh alias Manjit Singh) and land measuring 01 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khewat/khatauni no.353/556, khasra number (1-17) (9/20th share of Sukhdeep Singh and 11/20th share of Mandeep Singh alias Manjit Singh), situated within the revenue limits of village Gidder, Tehsil and Distt Bathinda as per jamabandi for the year 2008-09 @ Rs.18,25,000/- per acre, from the plaintiffs and subsequent agreements/writings dated 14.052015 for the sale of land measuring 50 kanals 13 marlas, are null and void and not enforceable against the rights of the plaintiffs as the same stands cancelled;
AND Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the aforesaid agreement for sale dated 26.03.2014 and writings dated 14.05.2015 against the plaintiffs and also from recovering the earnest money from the plaintiffs by way of coercive methods as the same stands forfeited as the defendants have failed to perform their part of the agreement dated 26.03.2014 as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.3.2014 and subsequent writings dated 14.05.2015." It is submitted that the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee on the total value of the land as per terms and conditions of the agreement vide which it was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.1,15,54,531/- and the trial Court has misread the import of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors (2010) 12 SCC 112.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2018 00:41:37 :::
CR No.5508 of 2017 #4#
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order. Since the possession of the property was not sought for, therefore the respondents- plaintiffs are not responsible to pay ad valorem court fee.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after appraisal of the paper book, I am of the view that the impugned order is bereft of reasoning in the sense that the trial Court after extracting the relevant portion of the judgment in Suhrid Singh's case (supra) has not assigned any reason while dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Such finding, in my opinion, is not only fallacious but repugnant as well.
On perusal of the findings recorded by the court below it appears that the learned court below has not properly appreciated the factual position in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. This court is of the view that the court below has committed an error while exercising its jurisdiction vested with it while passing the impugned order.
Objection raised by the petitioners-defendants qua affixing of ad-valorem court fee needs to be adjudicated afresh otherwise it may prejudice the rights of the party to the lis.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.7.2017 is set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application filed under 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh after affording opportunities to the parties.
February 20, 2018 (AMIT RAWAL)
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2018 00:41:37 :::