C.R.No.5290 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5290 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Himat Singh @ Mita ...Petitioner Versus Om Parkash and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl.Advocate General,Haryana. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee by the trial court on an application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) vide order dated 13.9.2008, has approached this court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the tractor and alleged agreement and affidavit executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 for sale of the tractor is illegal, null and void based on fraud and misrepresentation and as such the same is liable to be set aside. Case of the petitioner is that he never sold the said tractor to defendant No.1 nor executed any affidavit or agreement to sell in his favour. On 9.4.2007, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 1 C.R.No.5290 of 2008 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non- payment of ad valorem court fee. The trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 13.9.2008 impugned herein. Hence this petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties 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 had laid down the following principles:- 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 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 prayed for a relief of declaration to the effect that he is owner of tractor in question and alleged agreement to sell and affidavit executed by him is illegal, null and void and at the same time he has prayed for consequential relief 2 C.R.No.5290 of 2008 also. Accordingly, he is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on the value of the suit property 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 29.9.2008 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