Second appeal against rejection of plaint in a mortgage-based suit for declaration and possession. Plaintiff repeatedly failed to affix the directed ad valorem court fee despite extensions; both courts below upheld the rejection. High Court found no illegality or perversity and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-479-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.09.2024
MAHENDER AHUJA
. . . .APPELLANT
Vs.
DHAN PATI AND OTHERS
. . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr.Sewa Singh Gill, Advocate, for the appellant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Suit for declaration, possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, bearing No.CS-2573-2015 [CNR N: HRKR02-0033922015] based upon mortgage deed dated 05.07.1985 and the consequent mutation was filed by the plaintiff-appellant way back in 2015.
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.17 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-479-2024
2024:PHHC: 121898
observed by the First Appellate Court that it is vide order dated 03.03.2017 that while disposing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 with read Section 151 CPC moved by the defendants-respondents, the trial Court had ordered the plaintiff to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the value of the suit land as per the collector rate within a period of one month. Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiffs filed CR-2428-2017 before this Court against the order dated 03.03.2017, but during the pendency of that revision, the plaint was rejected on 05.11.2018 and for this reason, the revision before this Court was rendered infructuous. Ld. Appellate Court has observed further that despite extensions granted time and again, the appellant-plaintiff failed to affix the necessary Court fee and so in these circumstances, trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the plaint.
No merits. Dismissed.
| (DEEPAK GUPTA) | ||
|---|---|---|
| 16.09.2024 | JUDGE | |
| ����� | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned? | Yes | |
| Whether reportable? | No |
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.17 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint for non-payment of ad valorem court fee despite repeated opportunities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahender Ahuja
Dhan Pati
Others
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
