CR No. 7809 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7809 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 1.12.2010 Happy and another ......petitioners vs. Ishwar Chand and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 18.4.2009 rejecting the plaint of the petitioner for non-payment of ad valorem Court fee and the order in appeal dated 18.8.2010 affirming the said order passed by learned trial Court. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration challenging the mortgage deed dated 12.6.1991 and the sale deeds dated 23.5.1996; 12.1.1998 and 14.6.1999 and as well as earlier sale deeds dated 3.6.1981 and 7.7.1983 and its mutations. In the said suit, the plaintiff was directed to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the value of the suit property vide order dated 2.2.2009. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in CR No. 1550 of 2009. The same was dismissed on 20.3.2009. After the dismissal of the said revision petition, learned trial Court rejected the plaint on 18.4.2009. Since, the rejection of the plaint is deemed to be the decree an appeal was filed. Such appeal has been dismissed by learned first Appellate Court on 18.8.2010 as the question of ad valorem Court fee has attained finality with the dismissal of the revision petition before this Court. CR No. 7809 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order passed by learned trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court fee is not sustainable as the property in dispute is an agricultural property and in respect of the agricultural property, the petitioner is liable to pay the fixed Court fee in terms of the Haryana Act No. 22 of 1974. Learned counsel for the petitioner was given an option to find out as to whether the petitioner would be ready to affix the ad valorem Court fee at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the ad valorem Court fee is not payable by the petitioner as the petitioners are already in the possession of the land in dispute and such Court fee is not required to be paid. Once, the trial Court has passed an order directing the petitioner to affix the ad valorem Court fee and the said order has been affirmed by this Court vide a speaking order, therefore, this Court in a subsequent proceeding cannot examine the illegality and validity of the order passed by this Court. Since, the order directing the petitioner to pay the ad valorem Court fee has attained finality with the dismissal of revision by this Court, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court that the Court cannot re-examine the order passed by learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 1.12.2010 preeti