Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Meena Garg – Appellant
Versus
Navita – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharkhoda, vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants no.3 to 6 has been dismissed.
2. Respondents no.1 to 4 had filed a suit in which a prayer was made for declaration declaring the sale deed dated 01.08.2017 and the subsequent mutation and the revenue records existing in the name of defendant no.1 to the extent of 36/2378 share and also declaring sale deed dated 17.03.2022 and subsequent mutation no.13573 to be illegal having been entered on the basis of fraud and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and had further sought declaration that the plaintiffs were owners in joint possession to the extent of 36/2378 share in the abovesaid land.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case the plaintiffs were required to pay ad-valorem court fee and since the same has not been done, thus, the plaint deserves to be rejected. It is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation and thus, on the said groun
Court fees and limitation issues in civil proceedings were found compelling in determining the rejection of a revision petition under Article 227.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a civil suit seeking joint possession, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act,....
A plaintiff not a party to a challenged sale deed cannot be compelled to pay ad valorem court fees related to that deed.
Court fee for joint possession claims must be determined under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, considering the dominant relief sought.
At the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be looked into, and the ground of limitation may be raised in the written stateme....
The importance of clarity in the prayer clause of the plaint and the opportunity to seek amendment to clarify the relief sought.
The rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be decided based on the averments in the plaint.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
