CR No. 6947 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6947 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 26.10.2010 Bhola ......petitioner vs. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 27804-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Filing of certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-2 is dispensed with. CR No. 6947 of 2010 Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court on 30.9.2010 whereby the plaintiff has been directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the total sale consideration on or before 30.10.2010. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and for possession in respect of land measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff along with proforma defendant No. 6 entered into an agreement on 29.12.2004 to sell their respective shares to defendant No. 1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,67,34,375/- out of which Rs. 16.00 lacs is the amount which was to be recovered at the time of execution of the registration of sale deed for which 30.3.2005 was the date fixed. A sale deed stands executed in CR No. 6947 of 2010 (O&M) -2- favour of defendant No. 1 by alleged General Power of Attorney It is alleged that the said sale deed executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney is illegal, null, void and bogus. In the said suit, defendants moved an application for directing the plaintiff to affix the ad valorem Court fee. It is the said application which has been allowed by the trial Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. The question is whether the plaintiff is liable to affix ad valorem Court fee. In a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court 2010(2) (Civil) 564 Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and ors, it has been held that if the plaintiff is a party to the document sale, he 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 the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the plaintiff has sought declaration in respect of share of the property of land measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas. Therefore, he can be called upon to affix the Court fee on the total sale consideration. Since, such question has not been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court, it shall be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the trial Court, which shall pass an order according to law in appropriate proceedings. Dismissed with liberty aforesaid. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 26.10.2010 preeti