BHARAT BHUSHAN AHUJA Vs. SATISH JINDAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 3.11.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat directing him to affix ad valorem Court fee, as calculated according to the market value of the suit property.

(2.) The petitioner had initially filed suit for permanent injunction in the month of June, 2009 so as to restrain the defendants/respondents, their agents, associates and others from interfering in his peaceful possession or dispossessing him or demolishing or changing the nature of the suit property by force or otherwise except in due course of law. In their written statement, the respondents denied that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property. Later on, the petitioner claimed that he was dispossessed by the respondents from the suit property in the month of June, 2010. He then filed an application for amendment of the plaint for claiming mandatory injunction against the respondents to deliver the possession of the suit property to him. His prayer for amendment of the plaint was allowed. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint as the petitioner failed to affix ad valorem Court fee on the relief of possession.

(3.) The petitioner filed his reply to the said application. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide impugned order held that under the garb of mandatory injunction the petitioner was claiming the relief of possession and trying to evade the Court fee.