Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

No Consideration Amount Passed, No Ad Valorem Court Fees Arises – Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Petition in Specific Performance Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a revision petition challenging the order on court fee deficiency in a specific performance suit. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, held that where no consideration amount has been passed in a property transfer agreement, the question of affixing ad valorem court fees does not arise.

Legal Point of Judgment: The Court deliberated on the applicability of ad valorem court fees in a suit for specific performance where no monetary consideration is involved. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that court fees are contingent on the existence of a consideration amount in such agreements.

Facts and Issues: The suit involved a property agreement between brothers, where the petitioner alleged that the plaintiff-respondent had not affixed appropriate ad valorem court fees to the plaint. The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement/affidavit executed by the petitioner regarding a property transfer, wherein it was stated that no consideration amount had been passed.

Nature of Suit: The Court noted that the suit was for specific performance of an agreement dated 06.06.2019, without any monetary transaction.

Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The petitioner’s application for directing the plaintiff to rectify court fee deficiency was dismissed, leading to the present revision petition.

Consideration Amount and Court Fees: Justice Sarin emphasized that court fees need to be affixed based on the consideration amount. In this case, since no such amount was involved, the requirement of ad valorem court fees did not arise.

Examination of Plaint Contents: The decision highlighted that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint are to be considered, and not the contents of the application or the written statement.

Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and holding the petition devoid of merit. All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2024.

Paras Dhawan VS Sachin Dhawan

 

Latest Legal News