119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1930-2026 Date of Decision: February 26, 2026 Jagjeet Singh Gill @ Jagjeet Singh …Pe00oner Versus Paramjit Kaur and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gauravjit Singh Jagpal, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner.

Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Kaushal, Advocate for the respondents-caveators.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral)

The present revision pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on has been filed by the plain(cid:27)ff in Civil Suit No. CS-2967 of 2024 (cid:27)tled “Jagjeet Singh Gill @ Jagjeet Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and another”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, challenging the order dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby the applica(cid:27)on filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was disposed of with a direc(cid:27)on to the plain(cid:27)ff to pay ad valorem Court fee on the en(cid:27)re sale considera(cid:27)on men(cid:27)oned in the agreement to sell.

2. The plain(cid:27)ff ins(cid:27)tuted the suit seeking rescission of the agreement to sell dated 13.02.2023, under which he had agreed to sell the property in dispute to the defendants for a total considera(cid:27)on of ₹2.6 crores, out of which ₹95 lakhs had been received as earnest money. The suit proceeds on the allega(cid:27)on that the defendants failed to perform their contractual obliga(cid:27)ons, thereby en(cid:27)tling the plain(cid:27)ff to rescind the contract.

3. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner contends that the trial Court erred in direc(cid:27)ng payment of ad valorem Court fee on the en(cid:27)re sale considera(cid:27)on. It is argued that since the plain(cid:27)ff seeks rescission of the agreement due to alleged breach by the defendants, and the only monetary component involved is the earnest money already received, the Court fee ought to be computed only on that amount. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment in Anil Kumar and others v. Maninderbir Singh, 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 240 as well as a subsequent coordinate Bench decision in Subhash Chander v. Dinesh Kumar and another, 2026 NCPHHC 20907, wherein it has been held that in a suit seeking rescission of an agreement to sell on account of non-performance by the opposite party, ad valorem Court fee is not payable on the en(cid:27)re sale considera(cid:27)on unless the relief effec(cid:27)vely seeks cancella(cid:27)on of a completed conveyance or enforcement of the en(cid:27)re contract.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the aforesaid legal posi(cid:27)on.

5. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds merit in the revision pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on.

6. A clear dis(cid:27)nc(cid:27)on exists between a suit seeking cancella(cid:27)on of a completed conveyance and a suit seeking rescission of an executory agreement to sell. In the former category, where the transac(cid:27)on has culminated into transfer of (cid:27)tle, the valua(cid:27)on is ordinarily linked to the en(cid:27)re considera(cid:27)on reflected in the document. However, in the la@er category, where the agreement remains executory and the plain(cid:27)ff merely seeks to avoid its consequences due to breach by the other party, the real subject ma@er of dispute is the contractual rela(cid:27)onship and the monetary component actually received or claimed.

7. In the present case, the agreement to sell has not resulted in transfer of (cid:27)tle and the plain(cid:27)ff does not seek cancella(cid:27)on of any completed conveyance. The dispute essen(cid:27)ally revolves around the consequences of alleged breach and the earnest money already received. The relief claimed, therefore, cannot be equated with a challenge to a concluded transfer requiring valua(cid:27)on on the en(cid:27)re sale considera(cid:27)on.

8. The reliance placed by the trial Court upon the principle laid down in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(12) SCC