Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Kulwant Singh And Ors on 2 November, 2015
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
Civil Revision No.7305 of 2015 1
127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7305 of 2015
Date of Decision: 02.11.2015
JOGINDER SINGH
......Petitioner
Vs
KULWANT SINGH AND ORS.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)
[1]. This revision petition is directed against order dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure P-5) vide which application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint on account of deficient court fee has been rejected.
[2]. Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of 36 Kanals 15 Marlas of land out of total 42 Kanals. In alternative, suit for joint possession has been claimed besides making prayer for consequential relief seeking restraint order against the defendants in respect of dispossession of the plaintiff and alienation of the suit property. [3]. At the stage of application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with MOHMED ATIK 2015.11.03 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.7305 of 2015 2 Section 151 CPC, only averments made in the plaint are to be seen. Apparently the plaintiff is non-executant of the sale deed, and possession has not been claimed as a substantive relief. In a suit for declaration filed by the non-executant of the sale deed for annulment of the same without seeking possession thereof, only fixed court fee is required to be affixed on the plaint.
[4]. Since the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed, nor possession has been claimed as a substantive relief, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, no ad-valorem court fee is required to be affixed. Only a fixed amount of court fee payable on the plaint is required to be affixed in view of observations made in Tarsem Singh and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others, 2014(1) ICC 1054 and Mohinder Singh vs. Jai Pal and another, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 771. [5]. In view of above, no interference is called for and this revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
November 02, 2015 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
MOHMED ATIK
2015.11.03 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
chandigarh