IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5120 of 2009 Date of decision: 8th July, 2010 Ajit Singh … Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Singh alias Jasinder Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 18. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-respondent, in the suit filed for declaration, specifically stated that no land in his hand could have been declared surplus and therefore, an area of land measuring 17 kanals and 16 marlas was wrongly deducted from the ownership of the petitioner as per the entries of revenue record. It was further averred that the land of defendants No.1 and 2 has been declared as surplus and they could have been shown owners of the land measuring 14 kanals and 6 marlas in equal share, but in the revenue record they were wrongly shown as owners of 32 kanals and 2 marlas of land. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 were liable to be set aside. The main relief sought in the suit was that the revenue department had illegally declared 53 kanals and 7 marlas of land as Civil Revision No.5120 of 2009 surplus. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that setting aside of the sale deeds was an ancillary relief. The whole case was dependent upon the fact that as to whether the area was rightly declared surplus or not. In the present revision petition, a prayer has been made that order (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court on 3rd August, 2009, whereby prayer of the petitioner that the plaintiff be asked to pay the ad- valorem Court fee, has been rejected, be set aside. I have perused the order (Annexure P-4). The trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur’ 1981 PLJ 423, to hold that the main relief sought in the suit was as to whether the land has been rightly declared surplus or not. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order (Annexure P-4). Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 8, 2010 rps 2