Allowed

M/S Omaxe Housing and Development Limited v. Hari Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2024CR/1917/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a plaint for deficient court fee. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Omax Construction Ltd. v. Dharam Singh, the High Court held ad valorem court fee was payable and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed; respondents directed to pay ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) Court Fees Act within two months.

M/S Omaxe Housing and Development Limited Vs… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

207 CR-1917-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.12.2024

¶3

M/s Omaxe Housing and Development Limited ....Petitioner

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

Hari Singh and Others ....Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶7

Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶8

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶9

Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground of deficient court fee has been dismissed.

¶10

Notice of motion was issued in the present case. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have chosen not to put in appearance, despite service.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in an identical matter pertaining to the same petitioner, the question arose as to whether ad valorem court fee would be payable in a suit filed by the respondent therein challenging the sale deed and the power of attorney on the basis of which the sale deed was made. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Omax Construction Ltd. (now known as M/s Omaxe Ltd.) vs. Dharam Singh &

¶12

JITENDER KUMAR 2024.12.05 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶13

CR-1917-2017

¶14

-2-

¶15

Ors. [Civil Appeal No.8880 of 2015 decided on 26.10.2015] held that the ad valorem court fee would be payable.

¶16

In the present case also the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 have challenged the sale deed dated 28.03.2006 and the general power of attorney dated 13.12.2005 on the basis of which the sale deed was done, as was the case in the case of M/s Omax Construction Ltd. (now known as M/s Omaxe Ltd.) vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. (supra) . The said judgment would be applicable on all fours.

¶17

In view thereof, the present revision petition is disposed off in terms of the judgment in the case of M/s Omax Construction Ltd. (now known as M/s Omaxe Ltd.) vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. (supra) . Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed. The plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 would be liable for payment of ad valorem court fee in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and are granted two months’ time to pay the requisite court fee. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶18

04.12.2024 jk

¶19

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶20

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶21

JITENDER KUMAR 2024.12.05 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Omaxe Housing and Development Limited v. Hari Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Omaxe Housing and Development Limited v. Hari Singh and Others

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

Housing Board Haryana Vs Nirmal Kanta

Net Ram Vs Shiv Lal

Rajwinder Kaur Vs Harbans Kaur and Others

Ram Kumar and Ors. Vs Padam Singh and Ors.

Ram Kumar Malik and Ors. Vs Nar Singh Since Deceased Thr Lrs and Anr.

Avtar Singh Vs Jaspal Singh