The High Court
Case Details
1 202 CR-1778-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2017 CR-1778-2017 August 18, 2025 Date of Decision: August 18, 2025 Date of Decision: TELU SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HI IS LRs ........Petitioners SINGH @ GULJAR SINGH (DECEASED)THRU LRS. & GURJINDER SINGH @ GULJAR SINGH (DECEASED)THRU LRS. & GURJINDER ORS ........Respondents Versus
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate and Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1(i), 2, 6, 7, 8 and 15. respondent Nos. 1(i), 2, 6, 7, 8 and 15. respondent Nos. 1(i), 2, 6, 7, 8 and 15. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA **** By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the Court of Additional Civil Judge order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge Court of Additional Civil Judge order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the plaintiff was directed to (Sr. Division), Sunam whereby, the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to (Sr. Division), Sunam whereby, the petitioner (Sr. Division), Sunam whereby, the petitioner make good the deficiency of Court fee. make good the deficiency of Court fee. 2. plaintiff filed a suit for In the present case, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for In the present case, the petitioner In the present case, the petitioner declaration as well as permanent injunction making following prayer:- declaration as well as permanent injunction declaration as well as permanent injunction It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner of agricultural land Khewat no. 97 to 99, that the plaintiff is owner of agricultural land Khewat no. 97 to 99, that the plaintiff is owner of agricultural land Khewat no. 97 to 99, that the plaintiff is owner of agricultural land Khewat no. 97 to 99, rectangle and Killa numbers mentioned in the heading of the plaint rectangle and Killa numbers mentioned in the heading of the plaint rectangle and Killa numbers mentioned in the heading of the plaint rectangle and Killa numbers mentioned in the heading of the plaint r Banjara and Shiv Krishan son of Gurdit Singh situated at village Toor Banjara and Shiv Krishan son of Gurdit Singh r Banjara and Shiv Krishan son of Gurdit Singh situated at village Too disappeared in the year 1954 and by declaring him to be civilly dead, disappeared in the year 1954 and by declaring him to be civilly dead, disappeared in the year 1954 and by declaring him to be civilly dead, disappeared in the year 1954 and by declaring him to be civilly dead, the mutation of his inheritance be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff being the mutation of his inheritance be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff being the mutation of his inheritance be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff being the mutation of his inheritance be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff being /1956 legal heir of Shiv Krishan and the mutation no. 1191 dated 22/10/1956 legal heir of Shiv Krishan and the mutation no. 1191 dated 22/10 legal heir of Shiv Krishan and the mutation no. 1191 dated 22/10 of village Toor Banjara regarding inheritance of Shiv Krishan son of of village Toor Banjara regarding inheritance of Shiv Krishan son of of village Toor Banjara regarding inheritance of Shiv Krishan son of of village Toor Banjara regarding inheritance of Shiv Krishan son of TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.20 06:22 I agree to specified portions of this document Gurdit Singh is wrong, illegal, null and void and has no effect on the Gurdit Singh is wrong, illegal, null and void and has no effect on the Gurdit Singh is wrong, illegal, null and void and has no effect on the Gurdit Singh is wrong, illegal, null and void and has no effect on the 2 CR-1778-2017 rights of the plaintiff and the same is liable to be set aside and the revenue recordsJamabandi are liable to be corrected and further decree for possession to the effect that being owner the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the land mentioned in heading (A) of the plaint and further decree for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from mortgaging, selling or transferring in any way to any other person and from transferring the ownership in any way and from delivering the possession to any person of the land mentioned in heading (A) of the plaint situated at village Toor Banjara by alleging themselves to be the owners on the basis wrong entry in the revenue record, Jamabandi and alleged wrong and illegal mutation, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs.” 3. Upon notice, respondents-defendants appeared and filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that adequate Court fee was not affixed on the plaint and therefore, the same was liable to be rejected. 4. The instant application was contested at the hands of petitioner having filed his reply. The trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2017 allowed the application filed at the instance contesting defendants thereby, directing the petitioner-plaintiff to make good the deficiency of Court fee. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 25.01.2017 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sunam the present revision petition has been filed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book. 6. Once a specific prayer with respect to grant of decree for possession qua the land in dispute has been made on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, no illegality or perversity could be found with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court while issuing direction to TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.20 06:22 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CR-1778-2017 petitioner-plaintiff for making good the deficiency of Court fee. However, it is made clear that Court fee shall be assessed in terms of Clause v of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of. 18.08.2025 Tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.20 06:22 I agree to specified portions of this document