C.R. No. 3517 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3517 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 1, 2011 Kultar Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Mohabbat Pal Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Name of respondent No.6 is deleted having been inadvertently typed. Fresh memo of parties has been produced in the Court and is taken on record to be placed at Page No.7 of the paper book. The petitioner is a defendant in a civil suit filed by Mohabbat Pal Singh for declaration regarding the validity of civil suit dated February 15, 1991 and challenging the Will of Darshan Singh in favour of petitioner Kultar Singh. A relief of injunction has also been claimed against the defendant- petitioner. The defendant- petitioner claims that he has already C.R. No. 3517 of 2011 (O&M) [2] won a battle of litigation against Buta Singh and his heirs. It is claimed that the plaintiff is none else but one of the sons of Buta Singh but he has wrongly mentioned his father’ name as Hari Singh to file a fresh suit against the defendant- petitioner. A preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit has been decided against petitioner. Vide impugned order dated January 6, 2011, the defendant- petitioner has been directed to file advalorem Court fee on his counter-claim of possession. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he sticks to his claim that the suit of the plaintiff- respondent is not maintainable and in case he is made to pay advalorem Court fee for seeking possession from the plaintiff in his counter-claim he would also be required to affix Court fee again in case he wants to take possession from any of the heirs of Buta Singh. It is claimed that plaintiff is also a heir of Buta Singh. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that since the possession is being claimed in counter-claim, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court dated January 6, 2011 directing the defendant- petitioner to affix Court fee on the counter-claim. The apprehension of the defendant- petitioner that in case the plaintiff- respondent hands over the possession of the property to someone else, he would be required to file a suit for possession against the other third person by affixing the Court fee again, is far fetched. The petitioner will be entitled to implead any other person in case the possession is handed over to any other party. In that eventuality, the defendant-petitioner will not be required to affix any additional Court fee against any other person in order C.R. No. 3517 of 2011 (O&M) [3] to claim possession over the property on the basis of title claimed by the defendant- petitioner alleged to have been acquired by him on the basis of previous litigation and the other documents or any other decree in his favour. In view of this observation, counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforementioned. June 1, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE