Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surender Parkash & Another vs M/S Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. & Others on 8 November, 2012

Author: L.N. Mittal

Bench: L.N. Mittal

CR No.3328 of 2012 (O&M)                                                   1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH


                                             CR No.3328 of 2012 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision : November 8, 2012


Surender Parkash & another                                ...... Petitioners

                                   Versus

M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. & others                     ...... Respondents

                                   ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL


Present :   Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
            Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate
            for respondent No.1.

                                ****

L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed order dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court thereby directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit property.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In the suit, plaintiffs have challenged sale deed dated 27.11.2009 executed by plaintiff No.1 and his brother Ravinder Kumar defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the suit land.

Vide motion order dated 29.05.2012, plaintiffs were directed to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the impugned sale CR No.3328 of 2012 (O&M) 2 deed qua the share of plaintiff No.1 only. Counsel for the petitioner states that court fee has accordingly been paid.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee regarding sale consideration of the share of co-vendor defendant No.2. However, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that in that event, plaintiffs should restrict their claim in the suit to the share of plaintiff No.1 only and should not be allowed to challenge the entire sale deed.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiffs being not party to the sale deed qua the share of co-vendor defendant No.2, are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration qua the said share. Consequently, even if the plaintiffs challenge the entire sale deed including share of co-vendor, plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee only on the sale consideration qua the share of plaintiff No.1 and not qua the share of defendant No.2 co-vendor.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned order (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court to the extent noticed in motion order dated 29.05.2012.

(L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 08.11.2012 Anand