400n 1 CivilRevision No 5494 of 2004 OSMI 1 r Inthe HighCourt of Punjaband Haryanaat Chandigarh Civil Revision No 5494 of 2004 OSMI Dateof decision4 e lo2009 RajniSharma oetitioner r Versus 0 C Animesh Tyagi C5 Respondent I CORAM HONBLE MRS JUSTICE SABINA Z Present Mr A Takkar Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent a5 R4c3 mV2 SABINA J Z filed a suit for declaration that she was ownerin possessionof the Iand in disputeand that the sale deed dated 25 1987 in favour of the defendant in respectof the suit Iand was illegalnull and void and had been executed by playingfraud without any consideration and was not bindingon the rightsof the plaintiff An applicationwas filed by the petitionerfor Ieading evidence on the point of sufficiencyof coutt fee and another 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendant Vide the impugnedorder 1 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.02 16: 21 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 401n l CivilRevision No494 of 2004OSMl 2 ated272004 passed bythe Civil Judge6JrOivn1Jagadharithe filed bythe petitioner was dismissed with costs and she was given one monthstime to affix ad valorem coutt fee from the date of order Hencethe presentrevisionpetitionunder Anicle 227 of the Constitution of India 1 Learnedcounsel for the petitionerhas submittedthat in 0 the presentcase the coutt fee was not Iiable to be affixed as per the C marketvalue mentionedin the sale deed but was requiredto pay the C5 courtfee in terms of Section 7 Il of the Court Fees Act as amended I bythe State of Haryana Z In support of his arguments Iearned counsel for the petitionerhas placedreliance on the decision of the Apex Court in I Mahdaorao and other vrhe State of Maharashtra AlR 1972 08 SupremeCourt 45 Para 40f the said judgmentreads as under U It appears that accordingto the View of the HighCourt 7 Z the Couttefee is payableunder S l even with regard to Iand on its vaiue which accordingto the counsel for the State would be the market value In our iudqmentSection 6 il 4vl does not admit of anv such method of calculatinq the court fee where the subiect matter is Iand There is no doubt that where the subiect matter is a house ora qarden in a suit for possession the court fee has to be paid accordinq to the market value of the house or qarden 1 but where the subiect matter is iand the Court fee has to KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.02 16: 21 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402n l CivilRevision No494 of 2004 OSMl 3 1 becalculated accordinq to what has been providedin the subclauses lal 4bl anc cl with reqard to diHerent ItmavbethatinClauseIltheland which has not been assessed to Iand revenue Is not coveredbv subcls 4al ol and c I but then the Court fee will have to be calculated under some other provisionof 0 the Act but not on the basis of the value of the Iand C After hearingIearned counsel for the petitioner am of I C5 theopinionthat there is no groundfor interference by this Coun I In the present case the plaintiffhas soughtCancellation of sale deed in questionVide order dated 27 11 003 the trial Court r held that the plaintifoetitioner was requiredto pay ad valorem coutt I fee on the plaintas perthe value within a periodof one month from 08 the date of order Admittedlythe said order was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 16 1 003 In these circumstances the 7 Z Iearnedtrial Court rightlyheld that the issue with regardto affixation of Court fee could not be reopened at the instance of the petitioner Duringthe course of argumentsIearned counsel for the petitionerhas submitted that the impugnedorder has since been compliedwith as the ad valorem court fee has been affixed on the plaint SInce the petitionerhas soughtcancellation of sale deed the petitioneris requiredto affix the court fee as per the value of the propertymentioned in the sale deedle judgmentrelied upon by 1 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.02 16: 21 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 403n CivilRevision No 5494 of 2004 OSMI 4 1 7 Iearned counsel for the petitionerfails to advance the case of the as it is based on diHerentfacts Hence there is no force in thecontentlons raised bythe Iearned counsel for the petittoner Thus the impugnedorder does not suffer from any a 1 matertalirregularityand illegalitywarrantingintetference by this 1 0 CoUlt 3 Accordingiy this petitionis dismissed I C5 I SABINAI 2 JUDGE October 2009 C anita 1 08 me Z 6 tl 1 1 r G Il1 Ii KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.02 16: 21 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document