C.R. No. 4209 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4209 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 Ghoti @ Chhoti .... Petitioner Versus Pooja and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) In the present petition order dated 30.4.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Bhiwani is being assailed whereby plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration shown in the impugned sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner- plaintiff was not party to the sale deed and he has never executed sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that plaintiff never executed Power of Attorney in favour of the executants of the sale deed. He further states that Power of Attorney is forged one. Learned counsel for the respondents states that since sale deed is executed by the alleged Power of Attorney of the C.R. No. 4209 of 2010 2 plaintiff, hence, it shall be presumed that sale deed is executed by the plaintiff and he is bound to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration. I do not agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents. If plaintiff is coming before the Court with the allegation that he never executed Power of Attorney and sale deed was executed by someone acting as Power of Attorney of the plaintiff then for the purpose of payment of Court fee prima facie it shall be deemed that sale deed was not executed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not taken the case of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence in the present case. Plaintiff has taken the case of the forgery. This is settled position of law that matter of payment of Court fee is primarily between the plaintiff and the Court. It is also settled position of law that Court fee shall be decided on the basis of pleadings and contents of the plaint and not on the basis of the defence of the defendants. Since plaintiff's case is that he has never executed Power of Attorney and he has never executed the sale deed, hence, in my opinion plaintiff is not supposed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration. Division Bench of this Court in C.R. No. 22 of 2009 titled as Dara Singh vs. Gurbachan Singh and others passed on 3.5.2010 has held that if plaintiff is not a party/executants in the sale deed then he is not supposed to pay ad valorem Court fee. Impugned order is set aside. Petition is allowed. (ALOK SINGH) 28.09.2010 JUDGE reena