IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1628 of 2006. Date of Decision: 29th January, 2008... Dr. Varinder Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner through Mr. Chetan Dayal, Advocate Versus The Saraswati Kunj Coop House Building Society Limited & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. R.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Shailendra Jain and Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocates, for respondents NO. 2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon whereby the petitioner has been held liable to pay advalerum court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds dated 18.8.2003 and 13.9.2001. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, alleging, inter-alia, that he became member of the respondent No.1 Cooperative Housing Society and was allotted Membership No.4918. After completion of Civil Revision No.1628 of 2006. ::-2-:: all the requisite formalities, the Society allotted Plot No. 88-D measuring 250 sq. yards to the petitioner in the Urban Town developed by it at Wazirabad (Gurgaon). The possession of the plot was also delivered to the petitioner on 23.5.2003 in terms of the allotment letter dated 6.9.1999 (Annexure P-3) by the Site Engineer. Alleging further that once the plot in dispute had been allotted and possession thereof given to him, the Society had no right or authority whatsoever to re-allot or sell the said plot to any one else, that the petitioner has filed the present suit seeking a declaration of his ownership qua the subject plot. With a view to disclose as to how the cause of action to file the suit has arisen, the petitioner/plaintiff has averred that he inquired and came to know that the subject plot had been again allotted by the Society in favour of one Manoj Kumar who had further sold the same through his General Power of Attorney. From the plain reading of the plaint, it stands crystalised that if the petitioner is able to prove that he is a Member of the respondent No. 1 Society; he was allotted Plot No. 88-D measuring 250 sq. yards by the Society and he got possession thereof in a valid manner, in that event, the petitioner is likely to succeed in getting the desired declaration of his ownership qua the subject plot. The subsequent sale deed(s), if any, executed by the Society or the alleged second allottee are of no consequence and can not stall the declaration sought by the petitioner. In other words, the relief to set- Civil Revision No.1628 of 2006. ::-3-:: aside or ignore such sale deeds, is merely consequential and not substantive in nature. Thus, the petitioner can not be asked to pay advalerum court fee on the amount of sale-consideration mentioned in these sale deeds. For the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.1.2006 is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the observations made here-in-above are for the purpose of deciding the instant revision only and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. Disposed of. January 29, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE