C.R.No.5463 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5463 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Jaswant Singh ... Petitioner Versus Achhra Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: None. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee on the earnest money paid by the defendants by the trial court on an application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) vide order dated 15.9.2008, has approached this court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that agreement to sell dated 26.9.2006 executed by him in favour of respondent-defendants regarding execution of sale deed of agricultural land situated in Village Sanour, Tehsil and District Patiala stood cancelled, rescinded and earnest money paid by the defendants stood forfeited and further restraining the respondents 1 C.R.No.5463 of 2008 from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. The respondent-defendants instead of filing written statement filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee. The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing reply to the effect that the suit was for declaration and for permanent injunction and he has not claimed possession as a consequential or a substantial relief and as such the suit is properly valued. The trial court allowed the said application and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fee vide impugned order dated 15.9.2008. Hence the present revision petition. 3. After going through the averments made in the petition and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 had laid down the following principles relating to payment of court fees on cancellation of a deed:- i) Where the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the deed; ii) Where the non-executant, who is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share shall be required to affix fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act; iii) Where the non-executant who is not in possession seeks declaration that the deed is invalid and also claim 2 C.R.No.5463 of 2008 relief of possession, is required to affix ad-valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) ( c) of the Act. Under the Proviso attached thereto, such valuation in case of property shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed a declaration to the effect that agreement to sell dated 26.9.2006 executed by him stood cancelled and earnest money paid by the defendants to the plaintiff stood forfeited. Accordingly, he is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of earnest money paid by the defendant, as directed by the trial court in view of the principles laid down in Suhrid Singh ’s case (supra). 6. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out for setting aside the impugned order and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, this Court vide order dated 4.10.2008 had stayed the operation of the impugned order. Accordingly, the time for payment of court-fee shall be granted by the trial Court within which the petitioner shall make good the deficiency in the court-fee. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3