IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 24.02.2025 Pronounced on: 18.03.2025 Mehnga Singh ….Petitioner Versus Narinder Kaur and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

16.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the application filed by the petitioner- defendants (hereinafter referred to as petitioner-defendant) for rejecting the appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs-proforma respondents No.4 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as respondents-plaintiffs) on the ground of insufficient Court fee was dismissed.

2. A suit for declaration to the effect that the respondents were the owners in joint possession of Kothi No.207 measuring 7.5 marlas, situated in the Revenue Estate of Dayal Nagar, near Avtar Nagar, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property) was filed. A further declaration was sought that sale deeds dated 26.09.2000 and 13.02.2002 were null and void and not binding upon the rights of the respondents-plaintiffs, the same being the result of fraud and misrepresentation. Relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering into their peaceful possession over the disputed property was also sought. The suit was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-2).

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) NRI Court, Jalandhar, the suit was dismissed. A finding was also returned that the respondents-plaintiffs were bound to make good the deficiency in the Court fee within one month failing which, the District Collector would recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal (Annexure P-4) was preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner-defendant for opposed the same on the ground that the ad-valorem Court fees on the sale deeds had not been paid. The application was rejected by way of order (Annexure P-7). The said application was, however, dismissed by way of the impugned order leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 18.05.2024. However, no one put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs as a result of which they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated

05.02.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard.

6. Learned counsel strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. It was submitted that under Issue No.9, it was found by the learned trial Court that ad-valorem Court fee was required to be paid by respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, for, their case that the sale deeds had been got registered as a result of a fraud was rejected. The said findings on Issue No.9 have not been challenged by the respondents-plaintiffs in the appeal meaning thereby that they have accepted the same. Despite the same, even the appeal has been filed without the ad-valorem Court fee on the sale deeds. On account of this reason, the application for rejection of the memorandum of appeal was filed which was erroneously dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel submitted that in fact, the appeal was not maintainable without complying with the earlier direction of the trial Court in depositing the ad-valorem Court fee. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court of India in the case of Sardar Tajender Singh Ghambhir and another Vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh and others 2015 AIR (SC) 242 and Suhrid Singh @

Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others 2010 AIR(SC) 2807.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was dismisse