Civil Revision No.4661 of 2009

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.4661 of 2009

Date of decision 12.3.2010.

Dilawar Singh and another

.............. Petitioners.

versus

Gurmeet Kaur and others.

........... Respondents.

Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Civil Revision No.6475 of 2009

Smt. Kamla alias Guddi

.............. Petitioners.

versus

Dilawar Singh and others

........... . Respondents.

Present : Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

CORAM : - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI.

Civil Revision No.4661 of 2009

2

K.C.PURI. J.

By this common order I intend to dispose of Civil Revisions

one bearing No.4661 of 2009 preferred by Dilawar Singh and another

against the order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge

(Junior Division) vide which they have been ordered to affix ad-valorem

court fee and another revision petition No.6475 of 2009 preferred by

Smt.Kamla alias Guddi against the same order dated 27.7.2009 with the

prayer for dismissing the suit in as much as the mandatory provisions of

order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short – CPC) as

amended to State of Haryana vide new clause `J' to the effect that plaintiff

has not mentioned in the suit that no previous petition instituted or filed

before Court of competent jurisdiction.

The brief facts of the case are that Dilawar Singh plaintiff filed

a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff along with proforma

respondent Parkash Kaur are joint owners to the extent of ½ share of

property described in the head note of the plaint by ignoring sale deed

No.5638 dated 4.11.2008 and No.5643 dated 4.11.2008. The defendant

filed an application before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. One

of the ground was taken in that application is that since ad-valorem court

fee has not been filed and as such the plaint be rejected. The other relief

claimed by the defendant was rejecting the plaint on the ground that details

of previous litigation has not been mentioned. The learned trial court after

hearing both the sides directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee

whereas the other ground for rejecting the plaint was declined.

Civil Revision No.4661 of 2009

3

Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said order, the plaintiff-

petitioner has preferred the present revision for setting aside the impugned

order vide which they have been called upon to affix the ad-valorem court

fee whereas the other ground for rejecting the plaint was declined.

The defendants have also preferred the revision petition for

rejecting the plaint on the ground that details of previous litigation has not

been given and on that account the plaint should be rejected.

I have heard both the sides and have gone through the records

of the case.

The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration. No consequential

relief of possession has been claimed by the plaintiffs. This Court in

authority Teja Singh vs. Smt. Amar Kaur reported in 2008(1) Civil Court

Cases 531 (P&H) came to the conclusion that where the consequential

relief of possession is not claimed in that eventuality ad-valorem court fee

cannot be ordered to be affixed. The order of the trial court directing the

plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee was set aside by accepting the revision

petition. No contrary authority has been preferred by the defendant in this

regard. The relevant finding of this Court has been mentioned in para No.6

which is reproduced as under :-

“6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some

length, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned

trial Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. The

plaintiff has not claimed pos