Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paras Dhawan vs Sachin Dhawan on 3 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:045136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
127 CR No.1090 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 03.04.2024
Paras Dhawan ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sachin Dhawan ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 whereby application filed by
the defendant-petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for directing
the plaintiff-respondent to make good the deficiency in the court fees has
been dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondent, who is none other than the brother of the defendant-petitioner
herein, filed a civil suit for a decree of specific performance of agreement/
affidavit dated 06.06.2019 executed by the defendant-petitioner herein in
respect of half share of the shop/property situated at Post Office Street,
Ferozepur City as fully described in the plaint. The suit was filed by the
plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the defendant-petitioner had executed
an agreement/affidavit dated 06.06.2019 in respect of half share of
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.1090 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:045136
the shop/property situated at Post Office Street, Ferozepur City, which is
alleged to be in possession of the plaintiff-respondent since the year 2008. It
was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant-petitioner
had executed an affidavit in his favour and as per the said
agreement/affidavit the defendant-petitioner agreed to execute a registered
transfer deed in respect of the shop in question in favour of the plaintiff-
respondent when Neetu Dhawan, mother of the plaintiff-respondent and the
defendant-petitioner, executed a transfer deed of the house situated in street
Amritsarian Chowk, Arya Samaj, Ferozepur City in favour of the defendant-
petitioner. After the mother had executed the registered transfer deed of the
house in favour of the defendant-petitioner, the defendant-petitioner assured
the plaintiff-respondent that he would execute the registered transfer deed in
respect of half share of the shop in question in favour of the plaintiff-
respondent at the earlier. However, since the same was not done the present
suit was filed. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC for directing the plaintiff-respondent to make good
the deficiency in the court fees which application was dismissed vide the
impugned order dated 05.01.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend
that it has specifically been stated in the written statement that the ad
valorem court fees has not been affixed.
4. Heard.
5. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement/affidavit
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.1090 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:045136
dated 06.06.2019 alleged to have been executed by the defendant-petitioner
to register a transfer deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In the plaint
it has been stated that there was no amount which has been paid by the
plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-petitioner qua the said property and
that once there is no value which has been mentioned nor any transfer of the
property has taken place, the question of affixing the ad valorem court fees
would not arise. The court fees would have to be affixed according to
consideration amount. However, in the present case in the plaint it has
categorically been stated that no consideration amount has been passed. It is
trite that at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and the contents of the
application or the written statement cannot be considered.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order. The present revision petition being devoid of any merit
is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
( ALKA SARIN )
03.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
