C.R.No.5956 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5956 of 2009 Date of Decision : 23.11.2009 M/s Kalra Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Mandi Board and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pavit Singh Mattewal, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 14.9.2009, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the suit to pay ad valorem Court fee on the recovery of Rs.2,52,300/- was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to refund of earnest money of Rs.2,52,300/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the written statement, an objection was raised by the defendants that in fact the plaintiff is claiming specific amount, therefore, ad valorem Court fee is payable. At this stage, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint so as to affix ad valorem Court fee and to convert the suit for declaration into the suit for recovery. It is the said application, which has been declined by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that under the virtue gap of amendment, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to alter or C.R.No.5956 of 2009 2 change the suit for declaration to the suit for recovery after the expiry of limitation for filing of such suit. Therefore, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in declining the application for payment of ad valorem Court fee. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is without any substance. Though the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration, but the relief claimed is for recovery of Rs.2,52,300/- alongwith interest thereon. By affixing Court fee, the plaintiff is not changing the cause of action, but only meeting out an objection raised by the defendants in respect of the nature of the suit. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from patent illegality or irregularity, whereby the request of the plaintiff to affix the proper ad valorem Court fee has been declined. Consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to affix ad valorem Court fee on the amount claimed in the suit within a period of one month from today. With the said direction, the revision petition stands disposed of. 23.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE