CR No.3977 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3977 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Horam ...Petitioner Versus Dharam Pal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property 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 22.5.2009, has approached this Court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Case of the petitioner is that he is owner in possession of the land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. The petitioner never executed any general power of attorney dated 19.1.2007 in favour of respondent No.1 authorising him to sell, alienate, mortgage or lease out the land in dispute. Respondent No.1 on the basis of alleged forged power of attorney executed a sale deed dated 2.3.2007 in favour of respondent No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.6,26,02,785/-. The said sale deed is null and void ab initio. The petitioner prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in 1 CR No.3977 of 2009 possession of the suit property and the alleged sale deed is illegal, null and void and further sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on account of non-affixation of adequate court fee alleging that the petitioner has challenged the legality of sale deed dated 2.3.2007. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing reply. The trial court vide order dated 22.5.2009 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the court fee within two months. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had erred in directing the plaintiff-petitioner to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration as depicted in the sale deed dated 2.3.2007. According to the learned counsel, the ad-valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as quantified under Section 7 (v) of the Act was to be determined keeping in view the provisions of Haryana Court Fees Amendment Act No.22 of 1974 passed by the State of Haryana as the land being agricultural land situated in Haryana. It was urged that the trial court had erred in holding that the provisions of Amendment Act No.22 of 1974 were not applicable in the present case and the matter required to be sent back to the trial court for fresh adjudication in view of the following decisions of this Court :- 1) Chatter Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2009(5) RCR (Civil 903; 2. Alka Dhawan @ Shashi and others v. Sunil Dhawan and another, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 786; 3. Bhupesh Kumar Sharma and others v. Manohar Kumari 2 CR No.3977 of 2009 and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 784; 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Arya Mittar and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 798. 5. Bhagwan Kaur and others v. Amrik Singh and others, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 531; 6. Smt.Beena and others v. Rajinder Kumar and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 449; 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the trial court was not correct in holding that the provisions of Haryana Court Fees Amendment Act 22 of 1974 passed by the State of Haryana were applicable only in the suit for possession and the petitioner was liable to affix court fees in accordance with Article 1 Schedule 1 of Court Fees Act, 1870. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court to re- adjudicate the matter. The trial Court shall consider the issue regarding affixation of court fee in the light of legal principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and in view of the amendment made by the Haryana Court Fees Amendment Act No.22 of 1974. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3