High High Court
Case Details
CR-5523-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARH(cid:1) ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 (cid:1) amra Surender Kamra Anjali Kumari Ka ari Kamra and others CR-5523-2025 CR Date of Decision:19.08.2025 Date Versus(cid:1) tioner ... Petitioner ... Responden ondents CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARI ARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate Mr. for the petitioner. for t *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S ER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition has b The has been filed by the petitioner und under Article 227 of th of the Constitution of India for settin setting aside the impugned order dat er dated 31.07.2025 (Ann (Annexure P-7) passed by the learn learned Civil Judge (Junior Divisio ivision), Karnal whereby ereby the application filed by respon respondent No.1 for rejection of pla of plaint presented by the p y the petitioner has been allowed. 2. In brief, the facts are that the marria In b marriage between the petitioner-plaint
Legal Reasoning
plaintiff and respondent N dent No.1/defendant No.1 was ordere ordered to be dissolved vide decree ecree of divorce/judgment gment dated 19.07.2018 passed by t by the learned Family Court, Karn , Karnal. During the marit marital relationship, the petitioner- -plaintiff purchased a flat/resident sidential property bearing aring No.J-102 in the name of respond spondent No.1 from respondent No.2 a .2 and the price of the the said flat was fixed as Rs.23,59, 23,59,500/-, out of which the petition etitioner- plaintiff has mad s made payment to respondent No.2 o o.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 fro from time to time throu e through various modes. He filed a sui d a suit for declaration with consequent sequential relief of permane rmanent injunction whereby he sough sought transfer of the said house in se in his name and also pleaded that he gifted gold jew ld jewellery of about 120-130 grams grams to respondent No.1 No.1 at the time of marriage and 24 240-250 grams of gold jewellery ellery on various occasion casions during marital relationship. ship. It is further pleaded therein rein that PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 -2- respondent No.1 No.1/defendant No. 1 was given half en half share in the FDRs amounting unting to Rs.6,00,000/- in A in Allahabad Bank, Hansi, District
Legal Reasoning
rict Hisar, in which Smt. Krishna De na Devi was joint holder holder to the extent of another half sh half share. In the said suit, responde spondent No.1/defendant dant No.1 filed an application under under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeki seeking rejection of plain f plaint on the ground that since the pe the petitioner-plaintiff wants to get ba get back possession of the of the suit property and is also claim o claiming specific amount of FDR i FDR i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- and and the gold jewellery, he is liable t liable to pay ad valorem court fees as p es as per rules, which he is h he is evading. The said application ha tion has been allowed by the learned tr rned trial Court vide impu impugned order dated 31.07.2025, d 025, directing the petitioner-plaintiff aintiff to assess the valuat valuation as well as payment of cour f court fees on the sale consideration ration of agreement dated 1 dated 16.07.2012 and on the specific am ific amount of FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs, bei hs, being half share of Rs. of Rs.6 lakhs and thereupon pay the y the ad valorem court fee on the sa the said valuation till the ill the next date of hearing, failing wh ng which the order of rejection of pla of plaint shall be made abs de absolute. Hence, the revision petitio petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub Lear ner submits that the learned trial Court h ourt has erred in allowing lowing the application under Order 7 rder 7 Rule 11 CPC, while complete mpletely ignoring the fact e fact that respondent No.1-defendant ndant No.1 has already filed the writt e written statement and the nd the aforesaid application has been f been filed after expiry of three years. ears. In support of his con contention, he relies upon the judgm judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court passed in Civil A ivil Appeal No.4570 of 2023 titled as tled as M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures P res Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Narne E rne Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another on on 11.09.2024 where the applicati plication filed under Order Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection jection of plaint under Clauses (a) and ) and (d) thereof, after abo er about 10 years of the institution of on of the suit was dismissed. It is furth is further contended that d that deficiency of court fee is a mix a mixed question of fact and law an law and, therefore, the lear he learned trial Court ought to have fram ve framed the issue in this regard, inste instead of directing the pe the petitioner to assess the correct valu ct valuation of the suit and after assessi assessing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 -3- said valuation, to ion, to pay ad valorem court fee on such n such valuation. If at the final stage, t stage, the issue is decided a ided against the petitioner, he can be as n be asked to make good the deficiency ciency of court fee. 4. 5. Heard. Hea The head note and prayer sought in th The ht in the suit is reproduced as under:- Head note: Hea “Suit for declaration with c ith consequential relief of perman manent injunction and mandatory injunction. inju tion.” Prayer: Pray “It is therefore prayed that a at a decree for declaration to the eff e effect that the plaintiff is the exclusive actua that actual and legal owner of Flat No.J- -102, Ras Residency, Karnal, District Karn Ras Karnal and further passing a decree ree for mandatory injunction issuing a di man a direction to the defendant No.2 o.2 to incorporate, change/insert name of inco e of the plaintiff in place of defenda fendant No.1 and 3 in the entire relevant all No.1 t allotment record of the said plot a lot and further directing the defendant No.1 furth o.1 to return the entire gold jewellery llery as mentioned in para No.6 of the plai men plaint above and further to return urn the aforesaid amount of FDR duly men afor mentioned in para No.7 of the pla plaint alongwith interest @18% from the alon the date of accrued till its realizati lization may kindly be passed in favour of the may f the plaintiff and against the defenda ndants in the interest of justice with cost in t costs of the suit keeping in view ew the s.” aforesaid facts and circumstances.” afor It is also apt to reproduce para No It is a Nos.5 & 11 of the plaint, which are ch are as “5. That the plaintiff has paid near a “5. ear about 70% of the sale considerati eration of the above mentioned flat to the def of th e defendant No.2 on behalf of defenda fendant No.1, but as the agreement to sell a No.1 ell as well as the other documents we ts were executed in the name of the defen exec efendant No.1 and as such, the sa e said property is lying recorded in the nam prop name of defendant No.1. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. under:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 -4- 11. That the Hon’ble court vide ord 11. order dated 20.09.2023 has ordered ered to implead Smt. Poonam Rani wife of Sh impl of Shri Madan Lal as defendant No.3, o.3, as the defendant No.1 has sold the p the the property in question in favour our of defendant No.3 wrongly and illegally defe ally.” 7. A perusal of head note and prayer c A pe rayer clause of the plaint reveals that t s that the petitioner-plaintif laintiff has filed a simplicitor suit for d it for declaration with consequential rel ial relief of permanent inju nt injunction and mandatory injunctio unction. However, a conjoint reading ading of paras No.5 and 6 and 6 of the plaint, as reproduced abo ed above, reveals that the suit property operty of which the petitio petitioner seeks to get back the possessi possession, has been sold by responde spondent No.1-defendant N dant No.1 to defendant No.3 and when when the third party rights have alrea e already been created and d and the subsequent purchaser has al has already been impleaded as defenda efendant No.3, the petition etitioner-plaintiff is indirectly challeng hallenging the said sale deed, though ugh no prayer is made fo ade for cancellation of sale deed or de or declaring the same as null and vo nd void. Since the petitio petitioner-plaintiff is the non-executan ecutant of the sale deed and is not is not in possession and h and he is seeking not only a declarati claration that the sale deed is invalid b d but also the conseque nsequential relief of possession, he has he has to pay an ad valorem court fee rt fee as provided under S nder Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fee urt Fees Act, 1970. (see Suhrid Singh ingh @ Sardool Singh Vs h Vs. Randhir Singh and others (20 (2010) 12 SCC 112). Furthermore, more, the petitioner-plaintif laintiff is also claiming specific amou amount i.e. half of Rs.6 lakhs as lyi s as lying deposited in the in the FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs. The arg he argument of learned counsel for t l for the petitioner that the hat the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 t No.1 has opted to file written stateme statement first and thereaft hereafter, moved the application unde n under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeki seeking rejection of plaint plaint also falls flat, as the application cation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can C can be filed at any stage stage of the suit before conclusion o sion of the trial. In M/s Bhagya Esta Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd t. Ltd. (supra), the application under O nder Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed at t led at the stage when both t both the parties had led their evidence dence and the suit was ripe for hearing t aring the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 -5- final arguments a ents and in that eventuality, the applica application was dismissed. In the case e case in hand, only writte written statement has been filed and issu and issues are yet to be framed, meani meaning thereby, trial is ye al is yet to commence. 8.
Decision
In view of the above, the impugned o In vi ned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by t sed by the learned trial Co al Court does not require any inter interference and the same is uphe s upheld. Consequently, the tly, the instant petition stands dismissed missed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL (AM WAL) JUDGE , 2025 August 19, 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reaso /reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh