IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.09.2025 Chamkaur Singh … Petitioner Versus Vishal Dhawan and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

CM-19645-CII-2025 Prayer in the present application preferred under Section of 151 CPC is for placing on record the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for filing the suit without affixation of ad-valorem court fee and short orders passed by learned Civil Judge as Annexures A-1 and A-2.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application along with Annexures A-1 and A-2 is taken on record.

CR-4171-2023 The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, vide which the application moved by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondents/plaintiffs (Vishal Dhawan and others) instituted a suit (Annexure P-1) for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.09.2017 executed with regard to land measuring 3 kanals 6 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated in the revenue estate of Village Dhandari Kalan, Tehsil and District, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’).

2.1 The said suit was instituted without the requisite court fee and came up for the first time before the trial Court on 31.08.2021. The court fee was eventually affixed on 24.05.2022.

3. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-4) was moved by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground that since the court fee was paid on 24.05.2022, the suit had become barred by limitation.

3.1 The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-5), wherein it was averred that the suit was within limitation, as a request had been made to the Court to permit filing of the suit without the requisite court fee, with an undertaking that the court fee would be affixed as and when the same would be available.

4. By way of the impugned order, the said application was rejected, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that the agreement to sell was allegedly executed on 11.09.2017 and the date fixed for execution of the sale deed was 30.08.2018. The suit was filed on 27.08.2021 and the same was taken up for the first time by the trial Court on 31.08.2021. He further submits that the matter was, thereafter, adjourned on several occasions, but the requisite court fee was eventually filed on 24.05.2022, and by that time, the suit had become barred by limitation, since the period of limitation to file the suit was three years from 30.08.2018, i.e. the date fixed for execution of the sale deed.

6.1 Learned counsel submits that merely because the trial Court permitted the respondents/plaintiffs to deposit the court fee, would not mean that such permission was justified in law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court, rendered in Sukhpreet Kaur v. Shamsher Singh, 2015(8) RCR (Civil) 614

6.2 Learned counsel further submits that no application under Section 149 CPC was moved by the petitioner/defendant, which is the only provision under which extension in time could have been granted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s) has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that at the time of filing of the suit, an application ha