TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

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