In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Civil Revision No.777 of 2006 ..... Date of decision:23.9.2009 Kartaro .....Petitioner v. Mukhtiar Singh and others .....Respondents .... Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tohana, District Fatehabad whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem court-fees on the sale consideration. The plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh (respondent No.1 herein) filed a suit seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint and that the defendant-Smt. Kartaro (petitioner herein) had no concern with the said land. Smt. Kartaro- defendant (petitioner herein) in her written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh (respondent No.1 herein) to be correct and prayed that the suit be decreed. In view of the statements of the parties the suit of the plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh (respondent No.1 herein) was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.5.1985 passed by the learned Sub Judge 3rd Class, Hisar. The petitioner Smt. Kartaro thereafter challenged the decree dated 25.5.1985 alleging the same to be null and void and not Civil Revision No.777 of 2006 [2] binding on her rights. The mutation sanctioned on 27.7.1985 on the basis of the decree dated 25.5.1985 was also assailed. The alienation made by plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh (respondent No.1 herein) by way of sale and exchange in favour of respondents No.2 to 6 herein was also assailed. The respondents on their appearance filed an application for directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court-fees on the sale consideration. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tohana vide order dated 10.12.2005 ordered the payment of ad valorem court-fees on the sale consideration of the sale deed. The said order has been assailed by Smt. Kartaro by way of the present petition. When the case was taken up today for hearing learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the suit filed by Smt. Kartaro (petitioner herein) has been withdrawn by her by making a statement in this regard before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana on 19.3.2008. A photostat copy of the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana has been placed on record. Keeping in view the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner challenging the sale deed and the decree dated 25.5.1985 has been dismissed as withdrawn, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, civil revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. September 23, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No