C.R. No. 6516 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6516 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 16, 2009 Rinku @ Jagseer Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Baldev Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.13. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The main grievance of the petitioner who was defendant No.4 before the trial Court is that vide impugned order dated October 15, 2008, the application for framing of additional issue i.e. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, has not been framed and that the application of petitioner seeking a direction to the plaintiffs to pay C.R. No. 6516 of 2009 [2] advalorem Court fee regarding sale deed dated November 19, 1993 has been wrongly dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that a specific undertaking had been given while moving an application that as the entire evidence has been produced, no request will be made for seeking production of any evidence on the additional issue, the trial Court should have allowed the additional issue to be framed especially when a specific plea that the necessary parties have not been joined as party had been taken in the written statement. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the written statement indicates that a vague plea has been taken by the petitioner while filing written statement that the necessary parties have not been made party to the suit, therefore, suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Since the plea has been taken that suit is bad for non-joining of necessary parties, no harm could have been caused in case additional issue was framed as follows:- “Whether the suit is bad for not joinder of the necessary parties? OPD” The revision petition is allowed only in that aspect and subject to condition that the defendant No.4 or any other defendants will not seek any opportunity to lead additional evidence to establish the said issue and will rely upon the evidence which has already been produced as per undertaking given before this Court as well as in the application. C.R. No. 6516 of 2009 [3] So far as the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the suit should have been dismissed for non-payment of ad valorem Court fee regarding the sale deed dated 19.11.1993 is concerned, counsel for the plaintiff- respondents has contended that the substantive relief which has been claimed by the plaintiff- respondents is pertaining to a decree dated October 17, 1992. In case the said decree is held to be bad, the mater regarding subsequent sale deed dated November 19, 1993 will automatically be governed by the decision pertaining to the decree. After hearing counsel for the parties regarding ad-valorem Court fee, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated October 19, 2008. I have gone through the contents of the plaint in context to the law laid down in Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 368, dealing with few parameters of Court fee affixation and it is held that since the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed which pertains to agricultural land, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is partly allowed. The additional issue mentioned hereinabove will be added and the trial Court will determine the said issue on the basis of the pleadings and the material already on the record. It will be appreciated in case the suit is decided expeditiously. July 16, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE