C. R. 5498 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. 5498 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 08, 2011 Kamalpreet Singh (minor) through his mother Amarjit Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. Joginder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 21910-C-II of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Plaintiff Kamalpreet Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, thereby directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deed. C. R. 5498 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Plaintiff in the suit has challenged sale deed made by plaintiff's grandfather Joginder Singh (defendant no.1) alleging the suit property to be ancestral coparcenary property. In addition to the relief of declaration regarding the sale deed being null and void, the plaintiff has also sought permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction directing the vendees/respondents no.3 to 5 to restore possession of the suit land to defendant no.1. Learned trial court, vide impugned order, has directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed. Feeling dissatisfied, plaintiff has filed the instant Civil Revision. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is not claiming relief of possession and is ready to affirm affidavit to this effect, and therefore, ad valorem court fee is not payable. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others reported as 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 510 (S. C.). I have carefully considered the contention. Judgment in the case of Surhid Singh (supra) goes against the plaintiff-petitioner. The C. R. 5498 of 2011 (O&M) 3 contention that the petitioner is not seeking relief of possession is misconceived and factually incorrect because the plaintiff has sought relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants no.3 to 5 (vendees) to restore possession of the land in question to defendant no.1. Thus, the plaintiff seeks to deprive defendants no.3 to 5 (vendees) of the possession and it cannot be said that relief of possession has not been claimed. The vendees are to be directed to deliver possession to defendant no.1, if the suit is decreed and consequently, it cannot be said that relief of possession has not been claimed. Since relief of possession has also been claimed, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is dismissed in limine. September 08, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE