IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4871 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.1.2010 Sohan Lal. ....... Petitioner through Shri Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate. Versus Manjula Mittal @ Manju Rani and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 4 through Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate. None for respondent nos. 2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.20222-CII of 2009 The application is allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.4871 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the ad valorem court fee. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Civil Revision No.4871 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... the petitioner is willing to affix the ad valorem court fee as per Clause (v) (a) of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act,1870 (for short, `the Act'), as applicable to the State of Haryana. He further contended that the said clause was amended in the year 1974 by the Government of Haryana and the court fee to be affixed has to be computed in accordance thereof. He has also referred to a judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No.6585 of 2001 titled as “Partap Singh Versus Kuldeep Singh and others” decided on 12.10.2003 to support his contention. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have not been adequately off-set by the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the paper-book. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under:- “7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits:- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:- (i)to (iv) xx xx xx xx xx xx (v)For possession of lands, houses and gardens – In suit for the possession of land, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject matter and such value shall be deemed to be :- Civil Revision No.4871 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... (a) where the subject matter is land other than land situated within municipal limits or abadi deh, whether under cultivation or not according to the market value thereof which shall be deemed to be; (i)in the case of land which is irrigated by perennial canal, sixty rupees per acre; (ii) in the case of land which is irrigated by non-perennial canal or by well, fifty rupes per acre; and (iii) in the case of land which is Barani, Sailab, Bud, thur, Sem, Banjar or of the like nature, thirty rupees per acre; and (b) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx” In view of the above extracted provisions of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has erred in directing the petitioner to affix the ad valorem court fee on the value of the sale deeds. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is accepted and the trial Court is directed to assess the impact of the aforementioned amended provisions of law as applicable to the State of Haryana and permit the petitioner to affix the court fee in accordance thereof and proceed with the suit as per law. January 11,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge