High Court civil revision petition challenging an impugned order requiring the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee of Rs.1135 on a suit for recovery of Rs.45,000 labeled as mandatory injunction. The Court found no illegality in the lower court order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.5271 of 2004 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5271 of 2004 (O&M) Decided on : 24-08-2009
Tarsem Lal Goyal
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
Amrik Singh Road Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. and others
.... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL .
Present:Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).
The petitioner(plaintiff) has filed this petition against order dated 19.08.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, whereby he was directed to append the ad valorem Court fee on the amount of Rs.45,000/- by coming to the conclusion that the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner for issuing direction to the respondents to refund the excess amount of Rs.45,000/- was virtually for recovery of the said amount. It has also been found that by twisting on words to wriggle out from the payment of the Court fee, the suit was drafted in a manner by giving the title as suit for mandatory injunction.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the
Civil Revision No.5271 of 2004 (O&M)
-2-
petitioner has submitted that for filing the suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.45,000/-, the Court fee of Rs.1135/- is required to be affixed. It has also been admitted that the petitioner(plaintiff) can recover the said amount of Court fee from the defendants, in case the suit is decreed with cost and as such, no financial loss will be caused to the petitioner, if court fee of Rs.1135/- is affixed on the said suit.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the amount of Court fee required to be affixed on the said suit, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in order dated 19.08.2004 (Annexure P-2).
No merit.
Dismissed.
24th August, 2009. Monika
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Additional Civil Judge correctly ordered the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the claim amount despite labeling the suit for mandatory injunction.
Tarsem Lal Goyal
Amrik Singh Road Co-op. House Building Society Ltd.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
