Civil Revision No. 5878 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5878 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: October 14 , 2009 Pardeep Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Jain Rice Mills and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Dr.Parveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order of the learned trial Court directing affixation of ad valorem court fee by the petitioner. In a suit filed by the respondents the petitioner had filed a counter claim challenging some sale deeds made by other defendants and some sale deeds executed by him on the ground of legal competency to enter into sale transaction. The respondents filed an application for a direction to the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee with respect to all the sale deeds. The learned trial court held that as regards sale deeds executed by other persons the petitioner was not obliged to affix ad valorem court fee. However, with regard to the sale deed executed by the petitioner himself ad valorem court fee would have to be affixed . Learned counsel Civil Revision No. 5878 of 2009(O&M) 2 has relied upon Ishwar v. Om Pati reported as 2006(2) PLR 859, Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Arya Mittar and others reported as 2007(1) PLR 798, Smt. Beena and others v. Rajinder Kumar and others reported as 2006(2) PLR 6, Bhagwan Kaur and others v. Amrik Singh and others reported as 2006(3) 649 and Chhote Lal v. Ansal Housing and Estate Pvt. Ltd. reported as AIR 2002 Pb & Hry. 302. He contends that in all these judgments it was held that where instruments of transfer were challenged on the ground of property being co-parcenary, ad valorem court fee was held to be not payable. However,in each of these cases the instruments challenged were those executed by other persons and not by the party himself as mentioned above. Even the petitioner has not been held liable to pay ad valorem court fee. Consequently no fault can be found with the order in the revision so as to justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently the petition as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 14, 2009 sunita