Jagdish Singh v. Dharampal Singh & ANR

CR-2737-2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2737-2014 Date of decision: 22.09.2015 Jagdish Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

Dharam Pal Singh and another ..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for respondent No. 1. AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 20.03.2014, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff has been called upon to pay the ad valorem Court fee in a suit seeking declaration for setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1989, passed in Civil Suit No. 379 dated 24.10.1989 and as well as the consequential relief. Mr. Robin Dutt, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerplaintiff submits, that the rate as noticed by the trial Court is not the collector rate, therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff has erroneously not been called upon to pay the ad valorem Court fee vis-a-vis, the suit property sought to be possessed after setting aside the decree, aforementioned. Mr.

Samir Rathaur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-defendant submits that since the petitioner-plaintiff had sought the relief for possession, therefore, ad valorem Court fee as per collector rate RISHU KATARIA 2015.10.

CR-2737-2014 -2is required to be paid and rightly so, the trial Court has passed the order directing him to do so.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

The factum of location of property in the vicinity as alleged by learned counsel for respondent-defendant is not disputed. Even no documentary evidence to controvert the collector rate has been placed on record on rebuttal. The trial Court on the basis, of per pleadings decided the application calling upon the petitioner-plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee at the collector rate by assessing the same @ ` 6500/- per sq. yard as the property in question is measuring 1584 sq. feet. Since, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner-plaintiff has not been able to controvert the collector rate, in my view, the impugned order does not suffers from any illegality or perversity, as relief of possession of the property, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1989, has been sought. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. The instant revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed September 22, 2015 ( AMIT RAWAL ) rishu JUDGE RISHU KATARIA 2015.10.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document