138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02-12-2025 AMARJIT KAUR ........Petitioner VERSUS SURINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-defendant impugning order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Phul, District Bathinda dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2. As per the brief facts, the respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell as per which the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs. 7,54,375/-.

2.1 The respondent No.1-plaintiff in the alternate also sought the relief of recovery of total amount of earnest money from the petitioner- defendants. The sale deed executed by the petitioner-defendant in favour of defendant No.2 and the subsequent mutation on the basis of the sale deed was also challenged.

2.2 The petitioner-defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint alleging that respondent No.1-plaintiff did not affixed the requisite ad valorem fee on the plaint. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner-defendant was dismissed by the trial Court by making following observations:-

“XXX....4. From the perusal of the case file, it transpires that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.02.2020. In the alternative, the plaintiff is claiming recovery of Rs.14,00,000/-. At this stage, court considers that a Section-VII(X) of Court Fees Act 1870 “for specific performance in suits for specific performance- (a) of a contract of sale-accordingly to the amount of the consideration.

5. In the present case, the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.02.2020 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,54,375/- and in the alternative, refund of Rs.14,00,000/-. The primary relief being specific performance, the court fee is rightly payable on the sale consideration. The alternative relief does not require separate valuation for court fee purposes unless and until the main relief is abandoned. When the court fees made on main relief, it is needless to say that no separate court fees need to be paid such on alternative relief. XXX”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaint filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff is liable to be rejected since the proper court fee has not been paid by him. The recovery of a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as an alternative relief has been sought as such, ad valorem court fee should have been affixed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff.

3.1 Reliance has been placed upon the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6413 of 2000 titled “Mehar Chand Das Vs. Lal Babu Siddique and ors.” decided on 17.01.2007 and Civil Appeal Nos.2811-2813 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.6745-47/2009) titled “Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.”, decided on

29.03.2010.

4. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the paper-book.

5. It is well settled that as per the basic principles governing rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out as to whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, defence is not to be considered and said principle has been re-affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in recent decision rendered in Karam Singh Vs. Armarjit Singh and ors.

2025 INSC 1238 whereby, the following observations were made:-

“15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e. suit barred