Surinder Pal v. Darshan Lal & ORS

C.R. No.546 of 2013 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.546 of 2013 Date of Decision.28.07.2015 Surinder Pal .......Petitioner

Versus

Darshan Lal and others ......Respondents

Present:

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The revision petition is against the order passed by the Court below directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not a party to the transaction and he has not sought for recovery of possession. According to him, the direction for payment of ad valorem court fee was wrong. 2.

The counsel for the respondents says that the plaintiff and the defendants are brothers and the brothers have sold only 2/3 rd share and plaintiffs' 1/3 rd share is still retained by him. There is no scope for challenging the sale effected by the brothers in respect of their share. It is one thing to state that the plaintiff has no case but quite another to say that the plaintiff has not paid the ad valorem court fee. I do not think that there is any error in the court fee or the valuation adopted. PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.07.30 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.546 of 2013 -23.

The order passed is erroneous. It is set aside and the civil revision is allowed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 28, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.07.30 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document