IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3118 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2011. Vinod Kumar and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Rakesh Kumar and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.11144-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.11143-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record copy of plaint, Annexure P6. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CR No.3118 of 2010 CR No.3118 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 27.03.2010, Annexure P5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Phul vide which application filed by petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was disposed of, with further prayer for giving direction to respondents-plaintiffs to affix requisite ad valorem court fee on the amount of `70,00,000/- as per agreement to sell dated 31.05.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Perusal of plaint of the suit, Annexure P6, shows that present suit has been filed by respondents-plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.05.2007, Annexure P1. Perusal of agreement to sell, Annexure P1 shows that the land was agreed to be sold for `70,00,000/- half of which is `35,00,000/- and a sum of `8,60,000/- was also received as earnest money by the present petitioners-defendants. In the present suit it has been pleaded by respondents-plaintiffs that the sale consideration is only `35,00,000/- and however, the said plea is not as per the agreement. Learned trial Court accepted the argument of learned counsel for respondents- plaintiffs that he is ready to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of `70,00,000/- if the court comes to the conclusion that agreement to sell was executed for `70,00,000/- and not for `35,00,000/-. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in postponing the payment of ad valorem court fee on the amount of 2 CR No.3118 of 2010 `70,00,000/- till the decision of the point as to whether agreement has been executed for `70,00,000/- or for `35,00,000/-. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that when sale consideration has been mentioned as `70,00,000/- in the agreement in dispute on the basis of which the present suit has been filed, the respondents-plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court fee on the entire sale consideration. Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to allow respondents-plaintiffs to make good deficiency in court fee to be calculated ad valorem on `70,00,000/- within a stipulated period. Disposed of accordingly. (RAM CHAND GUPTA) April 28, 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 3