High Court rejected a civil revision challenging a trial court order requiring the plaintiff to pay court fee on the market value of suit property rather than annual revenue, directing the trial court to appoint a valuer.
Trial Court directed to appoint a property valuer to fix market value and direct payment of court fee thereupon.
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.
1
Civil Revision No.6852 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6852 of 2012(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : November 20, 2012
Bhajan Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Dilbagh Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
Present Ms. Bupinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. ***
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
Civil Revision No.6852 of 2012(O&M) 2
further submission that the trial Court without embarking upon fixing actual value of the suit property simply adopted the value given by the defendant in the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3
Civil Revision No.6852 of 2012(O&M)
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
November 20, 2012 p.singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is required to pay court fee based on the market value of the suit property when the suit involves delivery of possession of a house.
Whether the trial Court erred in accepting the defendant's stated value of the property without undertaking an objective inquiry to fix the market value.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhajan Kaur
Dilbagh Singh
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
