CR No. 5819 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 5819 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2010 Hira Lal and others ....Petitioner Versus Anil and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral). Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, thereby directing the plaintiff - petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration shown in the sale deeds in question. Since payment of Court fee is a question involved between the plaintiff and the Court, hence I do not propose to issue notice to the respondent - defendant at this stage. From the perusal of paragraph 11 of the plaint, it is clear that plaintiff is not a party in any of the impugned sale deeds. CR No. 5819 of 2010 2 From the perusal of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint, it reveals that plaintiff has stated that sale deeds in question were executed by the impostors since the alleged executant of the sale deeds had already expired prior to the execution of the sale deeds and some of the executants of the sale deeds were not in the village on the date sale deeds were shown to have been executed. This Court vide order dated 3.5.2010 passed in C.R. No.22 of 2009 (Dara Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh), has held that if plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed in question, then he is not supposed to pay ad valorem Court fee. Order impugned is against the settled principle of law as held by this Court in Dara Singh’s case (supra). Petition is allowed. Order impugned is quashed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 10.09.2010 sk.