IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.08.2010 C.R.No.199 of 2010 Dhan Singh ...Petitioner Versus M/s Garnish Colonizer Private Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned trial Court on 09.09.2009, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to affix ad valorem Court fee. The plaintiff is challenging the sale deed dated 5.12.2005 on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration tendered through cheques. The question; whether such suit attracts ad valorem Court fee, has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 564 (C.A.NO. 2811-13 of 2010 decided on 29.3.2010). The Division Bench of this Court in Dara Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh and others (C.R.No.22 of 2009) has relied upon such judgment. C.R.No.199 of 2010 Since the petitioner is an executant of the document of sale, the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 02.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2