Dismissed

Abhey Singh v. Jugbir Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jan 2012CR/5866/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision under Article 226, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to set aside the trial court's order. The trial court had rejected an application challenging a consent decree on the ground that the applicant failed to pay ad valorem court fees. The High Court held the revision meritless, noting the applicant's prior exclusion from a decree against which his

What did the court decide?

The instant revision petition was dismissed in limine.

Abhey Singh Vs Jugbir Singh and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.5866 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.5866 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 04, 2012

Abhey Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

Jugbir Singh & others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Defendant No.1 Abhey Singh has filed the instant civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside order dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari thereby dismissing application moved by defendant No.1/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint on account of non-payment of ad valorem Court fee.

¶15

Respondent No.1-plaintiff is real brother of defendant No.1petitioner. Defendants/respondents No.2 and 3 are their real sisters whereas defendant-respondent No.4 is their widowed mother. Defendant No.1 obtained consent decree through Samjhota Sadan (Permanent Lok Adalat) against defendants No.2 to 4 claiming that there is no other legal heir of Surtafather of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4, although admittedly the plaintiff is also son of Surta and is, therefore, his class I heir along with all the defendants. The plaintiff accordingly challenged the

¶16

CR No.5866 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

said decree in the suit.

¶19

Defendant No.1 in his application alleged that plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee failing which the plaint be rejected. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by impugned order of the trial Court, defendant No.1 has filed the instant revision petition.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶21

case file.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since decree has been challenged on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff is liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee. The contention is completely meritless and frivolous. Plaintiff is not even party to the alleged decree, which has been challenged by him on the ground of fraud. Plaintiff being not party to the decree is not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. Moreover, the plaintiff has sought declaration and injunction only and for this reason also, he is not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. On the contrary, prima facie fraud played by defendant No.1 -petitioner is apparent because plaintiff who is admittedly class I heir of Surta along with defendants, was not shown to be as such while defendant No.1 obtained consent decree against defendants No.2 to 4.

¶23

There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. The application moved by defendant No.1-petitioner is completely frivolous and meritless. Accordingly I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is therefore, dismissed in limine.

¶24

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶25

04.01.2012 'raj'

Abhey Singh v. Jugbir Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhey Singh v. Jugbir Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Pal Singh Vs Ramesh Kumar

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tini Rani and Ors.

Ram Nath Vs Vinod Kumar & Ors.

Ameet Singh Vs Harminder Kaur

Bijender Singh Vs Charu Arora & Ors.

Lilu Ram Vs Mangtu & Ors.