C.R.No.1828 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1828 of 2005 Date of Decision : 28.06.2010 Naresh Saran ...Petitioner Versus Kapil Bajaj and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.02.2005, whereby the plaintiff was directed to affix Court fee as per the sale consideration on the sale deed impugned in the suit. The plaintiff has executed two sale deeds dated 23.06.1987 and 30.8.1987 in favour of Gurinderjit Singh and in favour of his wife namely Balwinder Kaur respectively. The vendees from the plaintiff sold the said property to one Kapil Bajaj on 19.6.2000 and 21.6.2000. It is Kapil Bajaj, who sold the part of the property so purchased in favour of one Praveen Mittal on 5.3.2003. It is said sale deed, which is subject matter of challenge in the present suit. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration challenging the said sale deed inter alia for the reason that only share of C.R.No.1828 of 2005 2 the property has been sold by him, whereas the possession of specific khasra numbers has been delivered to vendee Praveen Mittal. The plaintiff claims actual physical possession of the land sold to Praveen Mittal by impugning the sale deeds executed in his favour on 5.3.2003. However, the learned trial Court has directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of sale consideration of the sale deed dated 5.3.2003. At this stage, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present revision petition and seeks some time to make up the deficiency in Court fee. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to withdraw the revision petition. The plaintiff is granted one month from today to make up the deficiency in Court fee. 28.06.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE