IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2855 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 21.04.2008 Barjinder Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate. vs. Mohri Ram and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the petitioner-defendant for rejection of the plaint due to non-affixation of the requisite court-fee, has been dismissed. According to the petitioner-defendant, since the respondent- plaintiffs have impugned the sale deed dated 25.5.2005 executed by one Waryam Chand in favour of the petitioner and, thus, have sought a relief to set aside the said sale deed, they are liable to pay ad-valorem court-fee and due to non-payment thereof, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The said application, however, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court thereby giving rise to this revision petition. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned C.R. No.2855 of 2007 -2- counsel for the parties have been heard. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties have made reference to the copy of the plaint. On a plain reading thereof, it is apparent that the respondent-plaintiffs have sought a declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the subject house to the extent of their respective share as claimed in the headnote of the suit and that “the alleged sale deed dated 25.5.2005 which does not identify the property in dispute, is not binding on their rights.” In sum and substance, the relief sought by the respondent- plaintiffs is that the alleged sale deed executed by Waryam Chand in favour of the petitioner is not binding on them and does not affect their rights over the subject house. In other words, they have not sought any specific relief to set aside the said sale deed. In this view of the matter, the respondent-plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad-valorem court-fee, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. Dismissed. April 21, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE