Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbachan Singh vs Sat Pal And Another on 26 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No.1434 of 2014 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
109 Civil Revision No.1434 of 2014
Date of decision: 26.2.2014
Gurbachan Singh
......petitioner
Versus
Sat Pal and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed challenging order dated 28.1.2014, whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has observed as under:-
"6. In the present case the respondent-plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed. Moreover, no relief of possession has been sought by the respondent-plaintiff in the present suit. By way of filing the present suit, interalia, the relief Devi Anita claimed is a declaration to the effect that plaintiff is a 2014.03.06 12:58 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1434 of 2014 2 mortgagee in possession of the suit land and judgment and decree dated 2.1.2007 passed in CS No.RBT 998 of 2004 is null and void. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) the plaintiff is not required to pay the advalorem court fee on the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed. In view of the above discussion, the authority relied upon by the applicant-defendant No.1 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Now to come up on 4.2.2014 for evidence of the defendant."
Learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the petitioner- plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed and had not claimed the relief of possession.
In these circumstances plaintiff is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 26, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.03.06 12:58 I am approving this document Chandigarh