C.R.No.7892 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7892 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Mohinder Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Tejwinder Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Plaiintiff-Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order dated 29.3.2010 (P.3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla whereby he has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property; further prayer is for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2010 (P.4) vide which the case of the petitioner has been dismissed for not making good the deficiency of court fee. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and alternative relief of possession over the suit land and further for setting aside the sale deed No.542 dated 24.5.2007 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 as described in the head note of the plaint dated 15.5.2009 (P.1). During the pendency of the civil suit, the defendant-respondent No.1 filed an application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint due to non-fixation of proper court fee on the plaint. Notice of the application dated 11.6.2009 (P.2) was given to the C.R.No.7892 of 2010 #2# plaintiff-petitioner and after hearing both the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 29.3.2010 (P.3) allowed the same and ordered that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property in despite and adjourned the case to 30.4.2010 for making the deficiency of court fee by the plaintiff-petitioner, failing which the plaint was ordered to be rejected. Despite availing sufficient opportunities, the order dated 29.3.2010 was not complied with and consequently the plaint was rejected and suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.5.2010, hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Learned trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-petitioner is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee on the market value of Rs.4,75,000/- of the property in dispute. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is claiming declaration regarding his existing right and is not claiming any new right over the suit property and in view of the provisions of Section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 (for short “Act of 1870”) proper court fee is affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Prayer clause of plaint dated 15.5.2009 (A.1) reads as under: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 4 bighas 10 biswa i.e land measuring 2 bigha comprising in Khewat No.57 Khatauni Nos.95 to 99 khasra Nos.473/0-1, 474/0-1, 640/2-1, 1026/219/4-5, 262/8-14, 1024/218/1/4-8, 1023/218/1/1-7, 1025/219/1-8, and land measuring 10 biswa comprising in Khewat No.27 Khatauni No.48 Khasra No.261/5- C.R.No.7892 of 2010 #3# 14 and land measuring 2 bigha comprising in khewat No.58 khatauni No.100 and 101 Khasra Nos.475-0-1, 476/0-1, 258/9-6 as per jamabandis for the year 2002-2003 situated as village Chhokran Tehsil Malerkotla. In alternative a decree of possession over the suit land and decree of declaration to the effect that alleged sale deed No.542 dated 24.5.2007 of land fully detailed in the head note (A) of the plaint executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and without consideration, non-est in the eye of law and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside/cancelled and mutation sanctioned on the basis of above said sale deed is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining to the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in land fully detailed in head note (A) of the plaint and further restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and further restraining the defendants from further illegally, forcible and without due course of law alienating in any manner (i.e by way of sale, gift, mortgage or exchange etc) the land fully detailed in the head note (A) of the plaint in favour of any other person may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with costs. Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled to as this Court deems fit may kindly be granted to the plaintiff.” A perusal of prayer clause reveals that the sale deed No.542 dated 24.5.2007 is under challenge and the same was perused by learned trial Court and the value of the same is Rs.4,75,000/-. It is alleged that the said sale deed is executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the suit land given under Head Note A but the plaintiff has paid the court fee, which is mentioned in paragraph 14 of the plaint, which reads as under: “That value of the suit for the purpose court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.195/- for part (A) of the head not, Rs.195/- for part (B) of C.R.No.7892 of 2010 #4# the head note, Rs.130/- for part © of the head note on which a court fee of Rs.53/- is affixed on the plaint.” The perusal of paragraph 14 reveals that the plaintiff has affixed the court fee of Rs.195/- only for head note A and the total market value of the property mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.5.2007 is Rs.4,75,000/- and the same is under challenge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion while passing the impugned order that the plaintiff-petitioner is liable to pay the court fee on the basis of market value of the suit property as described in the sale deed dated 24.5.2007 and no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is warranted by this Court. Dismissed. February 15, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE