IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7742 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.11.2010 Hardeep Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus M/s. Lung Ahrat Company and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Fatehgarh Sahib whereby plaintiff were directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale deed dated 2.6.2004 as well as on sale deed dated 22.9.2005. Undisputedly first sale deed dated 2.6.2004 was being challenged on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and plaintiffs were executant thereof. Hence, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others, reported in 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, plaintiffs have been rightly held to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale deed dated 2.6.2004. Subsequent sale deed dated 22.9.2005 was not executed by the plaintiffs rather was executed by the purchaser of the sale deed dated 2.6.2004, since plaintiffs were C.R. No. 7742 of 2010 2 not party in a subsequent sale deed dated 22.9.2005, hence, plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the second sale deed. Moreover, in the event of setting aside of the previous sale deed dated 2.6.2004, subsequent sale deed shall also stand cancelled/declared void. Hence, in view of this plaintiffs are not supposed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the subsequent sale deed. With these observations and clarifications, present petition stands disposed of. (ALOK SINGH) 29.11.2010 JUDGE reena