KULWINDER SINGH Vs. SAURABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sub Division, Bilaspur, vide which the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the respondent-defendants was allowed and the petitioner-plaintiffs were bound down to pay the ad valorum Court fee on the proportionate value of the suit property as mentioned in the agreement to sell. The only question here is as to whether the petitioners are liable to pay the Court fee on the proportionate value of the suit property, as mentioned in the agreement to sell or not.

(2.) While praying for setting aside the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was not a suit for specific performance and, therefore, the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that it was a relief of enforcement of the agreement by way of execution and registration of a sale-deed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Sharma vs Usha Sunderam, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 72 as well as on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and others vs Sate of Maharashtra and others, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 464. However, neither of the two judgments are relevant in the facts of the present case.

(3.) The judgment rendered in the case of Narinder Kumar vs Naresh Kumar and others, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 298 was referred to contend that it will not attract the payment of ad valorum Court fee in the absence of consequential relief of possession on the plea that he is already in possession of the property in dispute.