CR No.1655 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1655 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.08.2010 Smt.Shanti ..Petitioner Vs. Dheer Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner by invoking supervisory jurisdiction has challenged the impugned order dated 23.01.2010, vide which application moved by the defendants/respondents under Order 7 Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint for want of ad valorem court fee stands allowed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to challenge the sale deed, on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. No relief of possession was prayed for as the petitioner claimed to be in possession of the property. The consequential relief was of permanent injunction. CR No.1655 of 2010 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that though the petitioner was liable to pay ad valorem court fee, but it was to be as per Court Fee Act as amended vide Amendment Act No. 22 of 1974. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order, by contending that one of the sale deeds was executed by the petitioner, therefore, he was required to pay the court fee as fixed in the sale deed, and not as per Haryana Amendment Act No.22 of 1974. The payment of court fee is governed by Stamp Act, when the Stamp Act provides, that the ad valorem court fee payable, then the court fee payable is to be as per Stamp Act. Consequently, the order of learned trial court is upheld that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee. The court fee payable shall be as per Haryana Amendment Act 22 of 1974. Let the court fee be made good within one month from today. With the above modification civil revision is disposed of. (Vinod K.Sharma) 16.08.2010 Judge rp