MEHAR SINGH Vs. SHEHBAZ KHAN ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order date 25.2.2006, the petitioner was asked to pay the court fee and his application for declaring him as an indigent person was declined. It appears that the petitioner impugned the said order before this Hon'ble Court through Civil Revision No.1379 of 2006. In this revision, grievance was also raised that the petitioner has been asked to pay the court fee of the whole of the land, which was subject matter of the dispute. However, after perusing the order, this Court found that there was no such direction issued by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, directing the petitioner to pay a court fee on the whole suit land but direction was only to pay a court fee on or before 16.3.2006. It was accordingly noticed that no direction, as projected by the petitioner to base his attack in the instant petition, was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Subsequently, the petitioner has affixed the court fee but it is found not to be adequate. It is seen that the subject matter of appeal is an agricultural land measuring 16 kanals. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance in regard to an agreement of sale entered into by him for purchasing 16 kanals of agriculture land. The suit stands decreed against which the present petitioner filed an appeal. The submission by the learned counsel is that he had purchased only 4 kanals of land out of 16 kanals land and accordingly he wishes to impugn the judgment of the trial Court to this extent only. It is, thus, pleaded that he can not be directed to pay a court fee on the value of entire suit land as relief claimed by him is only relating to 4 kanals of land, which was subsequently purchased. Through, the impugned order the petitioner has been directed to make up the deficiency in the court fee and to pay a court fee on the entire subject matter of the agricultural land i.e. 16 kanals.

(3.) The order impugned in the appeal is a judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which relates to 16 kanals of land. The remaining effected persons appear to have not filed appeal against the said judgment. Counsel submits that the petitioner can be asked to file the Court fee in respect of relief claimed by him and not qua the entire land in issue, which stand adjudicated. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on Madhulesh Kumar v. Lajwanti and others, 2001 2 ICC 346. The ratio of law laid down in this case would not strictly apply to the facts of the present case. Here the suit is filed and in this context, it is said that the plaintiff was liable to pay court fee with regard to the area regarding which he has asked for possession by way of specific performance and not entire sale consideration. Learned counsel then refers to the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others, 1973 AIR(SC) 2384to urge that court fee is to be looked into on the basis of an allegation in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. These observations by the Supreme Court appear to have been made in entirely different context, while interpreting the provisions of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act. Situation available before the Supreme Court was not like present case where the suit has been decreed qua a whole land, which is being challenged by the petitioner. The counsel has then placed reliance on some observations made in the case of Lalit Porwal v. Narain Das Gujrati and others, 1966 AIR(All) 542. The issue in this case was payment of a court fee in regard to the subject matter, which was dependent on the share of the defendant. In the facts of this case, it was observed that for the purpose of value, the suit was not required to be valued at Rs.3 lacs odd but according to the share of the plaintiff, it was only Rs.28,000/-. This was again decided in the facts of that case.