Kartar Singh vs Surinder Singh Namberdar And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11643 P&H

                                                                              109



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                         Civil Revision No. 7314 of 2016 (O&M)

                                                   Date of Decision: 19.09.2022


Kartar Singh
                                                                 ... Petitioner(s)

                                         Versus

Surinder singh Namberdar and Others
                                                               ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:       Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
               for the petitioner(s).

               Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate
               for Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate
               for the respondent No.1, 2, 7 and 10.

               Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Deputy Advocate General,
               Punjab, for the respondent No.47.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The petitioner assails the correctness of the order passed by the

trial Court while directing him to pay the ad valorem court fee on the

amount of sale consideration.

2. He has filed a suit for declaration that he did not execute any

power of attorney, therefore, the sale deeds, executed on the basis of that

power of attorney, are illegal. For the purpose of payment of the ad valorem

court fee, the Court cannot assume that the facts as stated in the plaint stand

proved. The plaintiff is shown to be the executant of the sale deeds through

his attorney. Once he files a suit for annulment of such sale deeds, he is

required to pay the ad valorem court fee in view of the judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh 1 of 2

and Others (2010)12 SCC 112 and Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan

Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur 1981 AIR (Punjab & Haryana) 368.

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, no ground is made out to

interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present

revision petition is dismissed.

4. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge September 19, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2