Remanded

Shokat Ali v. Shakulat and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2009CR/2739/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition challenging an order requiring the petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fees. The High Court, following a precedent, directed the trial court to redetermine the fee amount based on an amendment providing fixed fees for declaration suits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to redetermine the amount of Court fee payable in terms of the amendment to the State of Haryana Court Fees Act, 1974.

Shokat Ali Vs Shakulat and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.2739 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 14.12.2009

Shokat Ali

...... Petitioner

VERSUS

Smt.Shakulat and another

¶7

...... Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶9

Present: Mr.Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

¶12

Aggrieved against the order dated 17.04.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, allowing the application of the defendantsrespondents under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has preferred this petition.

¶13

Vide impugned order, the Court while replying upon the application of defendants-respondents Under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., directed the petitioner to pay the ad-valorem Court fee as per the market value of the property involved under the decree which has been challenged by the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner has placed a strong reliance on the judgment delivered in case Smt.Beena and others versus Rajinder Kumar and others 2006 (2) P.L.R. 6 . In the said case, the plaintiff had been directed to pay the Court fee in a suit for declaration and the sale deeds have been challenged on the ground that the land in dispute was ancestral and the same had been sold without legal necessity. It was observed in the said judgment that the trial Court had not taken into consideration the amendment made in

¶15

Civil Revision No.2739 of 2009(O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

the State of Haryana vide Act No.22 of 1974. In the instant case also, the trial Court while allowing the application did not take into consideration the fact that the amendment made in the Court Fees Act vide Act No.22 of 1974 wherein Schedule Second Article 12 has been amended to provide for a fixed Court fee or Rs.25/- on the plaint to the suit for declaration where no consequential relief is prayed for.

¶18

Thus, while following the ratio of Smt.Beena's Case (Supra), this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to redetermine the amount of Court fee payable in the terms of the aforesaid amendment in the State of Haryana.

¶19

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

¶20

14.12.2009 mamta-II

Shokat Ali v. Shakulat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shokat Ali v. Shakulat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Goyal Vs H.L. Goyal & Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs Yeo Ram and Ors.

Sandeep Arora Vs Sandeep Sethi

Chaudhary Chemical Industries Vs National Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr.

Chaudhary Chemical Industries Vs National Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.