Partly allowed

Inder Giyan v. Shyam Sunder and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2009CR/201/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order directing payment of court fee on the total sale consideration. The bench held that fee should be paid only on the claimed balance amount. The revision was partly allowed, and the plaintiff was directed to pay court fee on Rs. 39,06,000.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside partly; plaintiff directed to pay court fee on Rs. 39,06,000; deficiency to be made up within one month.

Inder Giyan Vs Shyam Sunder and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R. No. 201 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R. No. 201 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: October 21, 2009

Inder Giyan

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Shyam Sunder and another

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mrs. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondents.

¶15

Mr.Arun Luthra, Advocate.

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Vide impugned order dated August 29, 2008, the plaintiffpetitioner has been directed to make the payment of Court fee on amount of Rs.62.86 lacs.

¶19

C.R. No. 201 of 2009 [2]

¶20

A perusal of the claim of the plaintiff- petitioner in the claim petition indicates that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a direction to the defendants to make the payment of Rs.3906000/- being the balance of the amount of sale consideration out of the total sale consideration of Rs.62.86 lacs. The said amount is the total sale consideration and the main prayer of the plaintiff in the civil Suit is to direct the defendant- respondent to make the payment of balance amount of Rs.3906000/-.

¶21

Taking into consideration the said claim, the plaintiff cannot be asked to pay Court fee on amount of Rs.62.86 lacs but he can be directed to pay the Court fee on the balance amount which is alleged to be due out of the total sale consideration.

¶22

Counsel for the respondents has contended that the Court fee on amount of Rs.31 lacs has been paid.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, deserves to be set aside partly. The plaintiff is directed to pay the Court fee on the amount which has been claimed and not on the total amount of the sale consideration. The appeal is partly allowed and is directed that the plaintiff will pay Court fee on amount of Rs.3906000/-. It is clarified that in case the Court fee on any amount has already been affixed then the difference of the Court fee which is yet to be affixed will be affixed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint.

¶24

The revision petition is allowed in the said terms and is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the trial Court. The

¶25

C.R. No. 201 of 2009 [3]

¶26

plaintiff will make up the deficiency of the Court fee within a period of one

¶27

month after the receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶28

October 21, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Inder Giyan v. Shyam Sunder and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Giyan v. Shyam Sunder and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Lata Vs Sunita Devi & Ors.

Major Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Ors.

Garg Rice Industries, Matlauda Vs Haryana Warehousing Corp. and Anr.

Gurnam Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Kuljit Singh Vs Sarbjit Kaur

Parkash Singh Vs Rajni Rani & Ors.