Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Praveen Singla – Appellant
Versus
Reshma Pall – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
CM-21202-CII of 2025
The application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Documents i.e. allotment offer letter dated 19.09.2012 in favour of respondent No.2-Rajeev Singh and report dated 27.01.2017 submitted by the Police Commissionerate, Gurugram, Economic Offence Wing, South, Gurugram as Annexures R-1 & R-2 are taken on record.
CR No. 5970 of 2023
The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 11.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram, vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) was allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff was called upon to affix the ad valorem court fee.
2. The facts, as emanating from the petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff (Praveen Singla) instituted a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction seeking the following substantive relief:-
“13. That the plaintiff most respectfully prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner/share holder of 1/2 share in the suit property and further prayed that the sale deed Vasika No.3322
A plaintiff not a party to a challenged sale deed cannot be compelled to pay ad valorem court fees related to that deed.
Court fees and limitation issues in civil proceedings were found compelling in determining the rejection of a revision petition under Article 227.
The relief sought for annulment of sale deeds and declaration of ownership required ad valorem Court fee.
The importance of clarity in the prayer clause of the plaint and the opportunity to seek amendment to clarify the relief sought.
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
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....
Non-executant plaintiffs challenging validity of sale deeds must pay ad valorem court fees due to lack of possession.
Non-executants in a suit challenging sale deeds based on allegations of fraud are not required to pay ad-valorem court fees, establishing a distinction from executants.
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
