JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2016 vide which the court below while deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the court fees payable, the plaint as a whole has to be read by the court. The plaint in this particular case was for declaration and injunction with a relief for cancellation of sale deed.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff is in a possession, therefore, the court fees as filed by the plaintiff was sufficient and there was no reason for directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fees in accordance with Section 38 of the court fees and Suit Valuation Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

4. Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to Section 24 of the Act. More particularly clause (b) which reads as under :- Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document