Nanhi Devi and Anr. Vs Krishan Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Nanhi Devi and Anr. Vs Krishan Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of on consensus with directions: petitioners to deposit the ad valorem Court fee on the earnest money paid within one month; plaint not to be rejected if the amount is deposited; any additional Court fee found due at final hearing per the law in the Division Bench judgment dated 31.01.2025 in CR-4067-2016 (para 41 thereof) to be paid by the petitioners at the time of pronouncement of the decree. Pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a suit challenging an agreement to sell requires affixation/deposit of ad valorem Court fee, and specifically on the amount of earnest money paid.

Ratio / Principle

On account of consensus between the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent, the present petition is disposed of with observations/directions recorded by the Court.

Key takeaways

The petitioners shall deposit the ad valorem Court fee on the earnest money paid, within a period of one month.ratio¶3
In case the said Court fee amount is deposited, the plaint will not be rejected.ratio¶3
If at the stage of final hearing the trial Court is of the opinion that anything more is required to be paid, after taking into consideration the law laid down in the Division Bench judgment dated 31.01.2025 in CR-4067-2016 (Anil Kumar and others Versus Maninderbir Singh), the petitioners will be liable to pay the same as well at the time of the pronouncement of the decree, as mentioned in paragraph 41 of that judgment.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision No.6244 of 2022 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Vikas Bahl, J., oral), decision dated 05.02.2026 - Revision under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution by Nanhi Devi and others against the order dated 30.11.2022 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, in a dispute involving affixation of ad valorem Court fee in a suit challenging an agreement to sell. By order dated 04.01.2023 a Coordinate Bench had stayed operation of the impugned order, noting that in CR-4067-2016 (Anil Kumar and others vs. Maninderbir Singh) the question had been referred to a larger Bench; that larger Bench adjudicated the point vide judgment dated 31.01.2025 (para 25: plaintiff must affix ad valorem Court fees on the earnest money paid). On the consensus of counsel for both sides, the instant petition was disposed of with directions: (i) petitioners to deposit ad valorem Court fee on the earnest money paid within one month; (ii) plaint not to be rejected if deposited; (iii) any further Court fee found due at final stage, per para 41 of the Division Bench judgment dated 31.01.2025 in CR-4067-2016, payable by petitioners at pronouncement of the decree. Pending applications disposed.

1

CR No.6244 of 2022 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

128

Civil Revision No.6244 of 2022 (O&M) Date of decision: February 5^th , 2026

Nanhi Devi and others

.....Petitioners

Versus

Krishan

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Ms. Renu Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners (through V.C.).

Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal.

On 04.02.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following

order:

“Present:None for the petitioners.

Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

On 04.01.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order.-

"Present: Ms. Renu Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners.

*** Learned counsel for the petitioner

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.05 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CR No.6244 of 2022 (O&M) 2

argues that the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in CR-4067-2016 titled as Anil Kumar and others vs. Maninderbir Singh has already referred the matter to a larger Bench involving a question of law whether challenge to an agreement to sell would require affixation of ad-valoerm Court fee or not.

Notice of motion for 02.05.2023.

Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. January 04, 2023"

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the said matter has been adjudicated by the larger Bench vide judgment dated 31.01.2025 and in the said case, it has been observed in para 25 that with respect to the suit in which challenge has been made to agreement to sell, plaintiff is required to affix the ad valorem Court fees on the amount of the earnest money which has been paid.

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 05.02.2026. To be taken up in the urgent list.

04.02.2026”

During the course of hearing, a very fair stand has been taken by the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent and on account of consensus, the present petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions:

(i) The petitioners would deposit the ad valorem Court fee on the

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.05 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CR No.6244 of 2022 (O&M) 3

earnest money paid, within a period of one month from today.

(ii) In case the said amount is deposited, then the plaint would not be rejected.

(iii) In case the trial Court at the stage of final hearing is of the opinion that anything more is required to be paid after taking into consideration the law laid down in the Division Bench judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in CR-4067-2016 titled as Anil Kumar and others Versus Maninderbir Singh , then the petitioners would be liable to pay the same as well at the time of the pronouncement of the decree, as has been mentioned in paragraph 41 of the judgment of the Division Bench.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

February	5^th, 2026		(VIKAS BAHL)
Puneet			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes
	Whether reportable	:	No

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.05 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh