KIRANJEET AND OTHERS Vs. SARWAN RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order of the trial Court directing the petitioners to pay advalorem Court fee on the plaint.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) was that he had executed a general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 but had subsequently cancelled it and, therefore, the sale made by the said respondent in favour of respondent No.2 would not bind him. On an application moved in this regard, the trial Court held that in fact the plaintiff was seeking annulment of the sale made in favour of respondent No.2 and consequently directed him to pay advalorem Court fee.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the plaintiff could not be forced to pay advalorem Court fee since this would amount to double jeopardy because on the one hand his property was sold by a person who was not his attorney on the date when he sold it and now he would have to seek the relief by paying advalorem Court fee. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 2 RCR(Civ) 564, and a decision of this Court in Surinder Singh and others v. Narinder Singh, 2010 4 RCR(Civ) 139 in support of his contentions.