C.R. No. 3136 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3136 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 7, 2009 Hari Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Hukam Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, an application filed by the defendant- respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the plaintiff- petitioner has been directed to pay the ad-valorem Court fee in his suit for declaration. C.R. No. 3136 of 2008 [2] Copy of the plaint annexure P-1 indicates that the plaintiff is not seeking the possession of the property which is alleged to have been sold by a sale deed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. He is seeking a declaration and consequential relief of injunction against defendant No.1 to restrain him from taking possession of the suit land on the basis of rights acquired by him founded on alleged sale deed dated October 22, 2001. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that in CR No. 4753 of 2005, reference has been made to a larger Bench to determine the factors in which ad-valorem Court fee is required to be affixed. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the possession has not been claimed by the plaintiff challenging the sale deed; the property in dispute is situated in Haryana; there is a specific notification laying down the affixation of Court fee in the cases of agriculture land and that the plaintiff- petitioner is himself not a party to the sale deed as he is claiming that the property belongs to Sham Lat Thok of Jattan and the property had not been partitioned besides taking up a plea that the allegation is not in accordance with Sharat Wazibulls. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the trial Court will proceed on with the case as per law. It is made clear that in case the defendant- respondents take up a plea regarding the inadequate Court fee having been affixed, the trial Court will frame an issue and on the basis of the various factors of fact C.R. No. 3136 of 2008 [3] and law, would adjudicate on the same. The decision on the said issue might be covered by the judgment in C.R. No. 4753 of 2005. In case, at any stage the trial Court arrives at a conclusion that ad-valorem Court fee is required to be affixed, it will be open to the trial Court to require the affixation of Court fee at a later stage, in accordance with the procedure of law. With the above observations, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated April 17, 2008 is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on January 16, 2010 for further proceedings. December 7, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE