Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Narula vs Shelly Juneja & Ors on 14 October, 2014
CR No.6451 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.6451 of 2013.
Decided on:-October 14th, 2014.
Sunil Narula. .........Petitioner.
Versus
Shelly Juneja and others .........Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
*****
Present:- Mr. A.K. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
A suit for declaration that plaintiff Smt. Shelly Juneja, respondent No.1 herein, is co-sharer to the extent of 1/4 th share in the properties in litigation and for partition of the said properties by metes and bounds, is pending adjudication before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar.
2. Defendant Sunil Narula, petitioner herein had made an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint of the respondent-plaintiff claiming that requisite court fee on YAG DUTT 2014.10.16 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.6451 of 2013 -2- the value of the suit had not been affixed by her. Disputing her liability to pay advalorem court fee, the respondent-plaintiff had taken up a stand that she had affixed the court fee in terms of Article 17(vi) of Schedule (II) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 (hereinafter mentioned as the Court Fee Act). Finding merit in the claim of the plaintiff, respondent herein, the lower court had dismissed the application of the defendant, petitioner herein, vide impugned order of 9.9.2013 (Annexure P-4).
2. Dissatisfied with the said verdict, the defendant has challenged the same in this revision petition. Pleas as taken in the lower court have again been taken in this revision petition claiming that the respondent-plaintiff is liable to pay advalorem court fee on the valuation of the suit properties.
3. Claim of the respondent-plaintiff, per contra, is that since she continues to be in joint possession of the properties under partition and has not been excluded therefrom, she is not liable to pay advalorem court fee.
4. Detailed hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties.
5. The fact that the respondent-plaintiff is a co-sharer in the properties under litigation, is not under challenge. It is not the case of the petitioner-defendant that respondent/non-applicant/plaintiff has been excluded from possession of such properties. The authority Neelavathi and others Versus M. Natarajan and others 1980 SCR(2) 307 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear on this aspect. Since it is not a case of exclusion of the respondent-plaintiff from possession of the properties under partition, no ground for payment of advalorem court fee is made out.
6. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.9.2013 YAG DUTT 2014.10.16 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.6451 of 2013 -3- (Annexure P-4). Affirming the same, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed.
7. As the suit is pending since 13.10.2009, the lower court would decide the same within six months even by taking the case on day to day basis, if so required.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
th
October 14 , 2014 Judge
'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes YAG DUTT 2014.10.16 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document