CR No.5790 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5790 of 2008 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 09.09.2009 **** Dalip & Others . . . . Petitioners VS. Kartar & Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.5 **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) The petitioners are minor sons and daughters of Kuldip respondent No.2, and are aggrieved at the order dated 25th September, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, whereby they have been directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration of Rs.6 lacs each, shown in the sale deeds dated 3rd April, 2007 and 14th August, 2008 executed by their father and which have been challenged by them in a declaratory suit. The aforesaid order appears to have been passed even without issuing notice to the defendants. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends and rightly so that the petitioner-plaintiffs, at the best, are liable to affix the Court Fee in terms of Section 7(v) CR No.5790 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - (a) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 as applicable to Haryana which reads to the following effect:- “7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits: xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxx (v) for possession of land, houses and gardens; In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens- according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be- where the subject-matter is land, and- (a) where the land forms and entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled- ten times the revenue so payable:” The aforesaid provision appears to have gone unnoticed by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 15.09.2008. For the reasons afore stated, the revision petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 25th September, 2008 is hereby set aside and it is directed that subject to the petitioners affixing the Court fee in terms of the above reproduced provision within a period of one month, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.09.2009 shonkar