ANAND SARUP Vs. SURENDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, allowing the application of the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. directing the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee. It is stated in the petition that petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the ownership and possession of land measuring 110 kanal 10 marla and plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial Court issued interim injunction after appearance of the defendants and vide order dated 12.04.2005, the respondents were restrained to create any type of interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/applicant in the property. It is further stated that the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, 7, Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to get the order of stay complied with as the respondents have been violating the injunction order granted by the trial Court and also for taking action under Order 39 Rule 2-A for attaching his property and to sell his property and compensate the petitioner. As per his calculation, he suffered a loss of Rs. 72,71,650/-.

(2.) Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 24.01.2009 allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay the court fee on the amount of Rs. 72,71,650/-, which the applicant-petitioner has claimed as loss and damages to him.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.