Civil Revision No.2376 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2376 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.03.2009 Emrald Housing &Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors .............Petitioners Vs. Chandi Ram & Ors. ............Respondents Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of 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? -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The frame of the suit with reference to the court fee and the payment made thereof are the issues involved in the revision petition. 2. The application was filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC impeaching the valuation made in the plaint as one for declaration and injunction on payment of court fee of Rs.50/- on the valuation made by Rs.500/-. The contention of the defendant was that the plaintiffs had challenged the sales effected by defendant Nos.6 to 14 as invalid and the plaintiffs must have therefore sought for cancellation of the documents and paid ad valorem court fee thereof. It was the further contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs themselves had stated that an alternative relief of payment of a Civil Revision No.2376 of 2008 (O&M) -2- specific amount of Rs.25,01,250/- had been made and this relief was required to be valued specifically and ad valorem court fee paid thereon. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) referred to several decisions of this Court where it was reported to have been held that if an alternative relief was also sought, the court fee was payable on the higher sum. He also refers to a case where if the son was challenging the alienation of the father, he was required to set aside the sale and pay ad valorem court fee and consideration mentioned in the sale deed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to the decision in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Labh Singh & Ors. AIR 2006 P&H 129 where the Court was dealing with the case of a suit based on the basis of title claiming that the defendants' purchase under a document was not valid. There the Court held that the plaintiffs were not required to challenge the sale deed in favour of the defendants when the plaintiffs had claimed under sale deed executed in their favour earlier. 4. I have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not required to pay court fee for setting aside the sale executed by some of the defendants under whom the plaintiffs did not claim. As persons claiming independent title and not being parties to the documents which they were assailing as invalid, they were not required to seek for cancellation of the documents and pay ad valorem court fee. 5. The direction for payment of ad valorem court fee has arisen in this case by reference to the fact that the plaintiffs have claimed in the suit a relief alternatively for recovery of Rs.25,01,250/-. If there is Civil Revision No.2376 of 2008 (O&M) -3- an alternative relief, the court fee payable on larger of the amounts shall determine the value of the claim. 6. Reliefs claimed in the suit in alternation have been considered in several decisions reported in Mst. Shanti Vs. Sudh Ram AIR 1955 Punjab 22, 1938 (40) PLR 33, Ibrahim and others Vs. Namdar Singh and another AIR 1926 Lahore 466, where the Courts have held that when an alternative relief is also sought then court fee is payable on the higher amount of the value. The decision made by the Court below is correct in directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the higher valuation of Rs.25,01,250/- although it is only an alternative prayer. 7. Under the circumstances, the revision petition is without merits and liable to be dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 21, 2009 Pankaj*