Allowed

(O&M) Jagjit Singh and Anr. v. Gurnam Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2013CR/1653/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court held that plaintiffs not being executants of sale deeds are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on their sale consideration. The imugned order directing payment was set aside and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing payment of ad valorem court fee was set aside; the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

(O&M) Jagjit Singh and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1653 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1653 of 2008 Date of decision : September 26, 2013

¶5

Jagjit Singh and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

Gurnam Kaur and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Parvez Akhtar, Advocate for Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the respondents

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed order dated 27.11.2007 Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court thereby directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the two sale deeds which are under challenge in the suit.

¶15

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the

¶17

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.27 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

Civil Revision No. 1653 of 2008

¶19

-2-

¶20

petitioners/plaintiffs being not executants of the impugned sale deeds, are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration thereof. There is considerable merit in the contention. The sale deeds under challenge were executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3. Plaintiffs are not party to the said sale deeds. They are also not seeking relief of possession of the suit property. Consequently, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 , the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deeds. Impugned order of the trial court to the contrary, therefore, suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error.

¶21

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit property and for rejection of the plaint due to non-payment of the said court fee, stands dismissed.

¶22

September 26, 2013 'dalbir'

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.27 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

(O&M) Jagjit Singh and Anr. v. Gurnam Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Jagjit Singh and Anr. v. Gurnam Kaur

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

Didar Singh Vs Darshan Lal

Sudhir Bhargava Vs Saroj Sharma and Anr.

Presidents Welfare Association etc. Vs Maya Devi etc.

Gursharanjit Singh Vs Chanan Singh

Gulzar Singh Vs Lakhwinder Singh

Gurnam Singh Vs Narinder Singh Saini and Ors.