Punjab-Haryana High Court
Garima Mangla vs Mange Ram on 24 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055156
CR-1979- 2024 2024:PHHC:055156 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1979-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 03.04.2024
Pronounced on : 24.04.2024
GARIMA MANGLA ....Petitioner
VERSUS
MANGE RAM ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition being filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure
P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guhla whereby the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant-petitioner
for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for mandatory
injunction, damages and mesne profits under Sections 34 and 38 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 as also under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The
defendant-petitioner filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the
ground that the plaintiff-respondent was required to pay ad valorem court
fee since relief of possession has been sought. A reply was filed to the said
application. The application was dismissed vide impugned order dated
11.03.2024. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend
that the application ought to have been allowed as the suit was for
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055156
possession and by mere astuteness in drafting the plaintiff-respondent cannot
be permitted to circumvent the affixation of proper court fee. In support of
his argument, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has relied upon
the judgments passed by this Court in Ram Chander vs. Rattan Lal
[2002(2) RCR (Civil) 157]; Moti Ram & Ors. vs. Smt. Kamlesh & Ors.
[2019(1) Law Herald 166]; Jai Sai Ram Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ramesh
Singla [2021(3) Law Herald 2410] and Ganga Lal vs. Ved Parkash
Kathuria & Ors. [2022(1) PLR 583].
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the case set up in the plaint is that the
defendant-petitioner was in unauthorized possession of the suit property
since 11.07.2023. The suit itself was filed shortly thereafter. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Severance & Ors. vs. Benny Mathew
& Ors. [2005(4) RCR (Civil) 559] has held that where the licensor has filed
the suit with promptitude and if it is shown that within reasonable time the
suit for mandatory injunction was filed, the said suit would be maintainable.
However, where the licensor does not take prompt action to evict the
licensee from the premises in such a case a suit for possession would lie.
The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the
present being a suit for possession in effect and hence the plaintiff-
respondent would be required to pay ad valorem court fee deserves to be
rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Joseph Severance (supra).
6. The ratio of the judgment in Ram Chander's case (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would not be
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055156
applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the said case the suit was based
on part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 and since possession was being sought hence it was held that ad
valorem court fee would be payable. The judgment in the case of Moti Ram
(supra) was based on the concession given by the counsel and hence would
have no applicability in the present case. The judgment in the case of Jai Sai
Ram Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was out of a suit for recovery where a definite
amount was claimed and hence the same is totally distinguishable on facts.
The judgment in the case of Ganga Lal (supra) is also distinguishable on
facts. In the present case a perusal of the plaint would reveal that a notice
was sent to the defendant-petitioner on 15.06.2023 revoking the license.
However, the said notice was neither relied nor complied with and hence the
suit was filed for mandatory injunction.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 11.03.2024
cannot be faulted with. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order. The present revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
24.04.2024 JUDGE
Aman Jain/Ankur
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
