C.R.No.6099 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6099 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Smt.Sarla Devi and another ...Petitioners Versus Smt.Meena Devi and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Kulbhusha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioners having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed, by the trial court vide order dated 4.9.2008, has approached this Court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 29.10.2007 in respect of land measuring 5 kanals comprised in Khewat No.91, Khata No.108 Rect No.1 Killa No.24/1 (4-6), 24/2/1 (108), 25/1 (5- 0), situated in village Chandanwas, Tehsil and District Rewari for a sale consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- is illegal, null and void and further restraining respondent No.1 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The land in dispute is joint Hindu family property. The trial court instead of issuing notice to the defendants passed 1 C.R.No.6099 of 2008 impugned order dated 4.9.2008 directing the plaintiffs to pay the ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deed in question. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had erred in directing the plaintiffs-petitioners to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration as depicted in the sale deed dated 29.10.2007. According to the learned counsel, even if ad-valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as quantified under Section 7 (v) of the Act was payable, still the land being agricultural land situated in Haryana, the court fee was to be determined keeping in view the provisions of Haryana Court Fees Amendment Act No.22 of 1974 passed by the State of Haryana. It was urged that inspite of specific plea having been raised before the trial court, the issue had not been adjudicated by it and the matter required to be sent back to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Reliance was placed on the following decisions of this Court in :- 1) Chatter Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2009(5) RCR (Civil 903; 2. Alka Dhawan @ Shashi and others v. Sunil Dhawan and another, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 786; 3. Bhupesh Kumar Sharma and others v. Manohar Kumari and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 784; 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Arya Mittar and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 798. 5. Bhagwan Kaur and others v. Amrik Singh and others, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 531; 6. Smt.Beena and others v. Rajinder Kumar and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 449; 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.9.2008 clearly shows 2 C.R.No.6099 of 2008 that the plaintiff-petitioner had specifically argued that the land involved being agricultural land, the plaintiff was liable to pay court fee as per amended provisions of Act 22 of 1974 passed by the State of Haryana but the trial court had failed to advert to the same while deciding the question of payment of ad-valorem court fee. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court to readjudicate the matter. The trial court shall consider the issue regarding affixation of court fee in the light of legal principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3 C.R.No.6099 of 2008 4