CR-1977-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CR-1977-2025 Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 GAGANDEEP SINGH AND ORS …..Peoners Vs DILMOHAN SINGH AND ANR …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Savreet Singh Brar, Advocate for the peoners. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Peoners herein are the plainffs in Civil Suit bearing CIS No. CS/ 31/ 2024 tled as ‘Gagandeep Singh and Others Vs. Dilmohan Singh and another’ pending before the learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaitu, District Faridkot. 2. Peoner are aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court, whereby they have been directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of ₹24 lakh as claimed in the suit, otherwise their plaint was held to be liable for rejecon. The said order was passed on an applicaon moved by the defendants-respondents under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that peoners had sought decree for declaraon regarding their entlement to the amount of ₹24 lakh as penalty on account of breach of terms and condions of the agreement to sell and so, there was no requirement to pay the ad valorem Court fee. 4. There is no merit in the contenon. 5. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the plaint, the head note of which is as under:- “Suit for declaraon to the effect that the plainff is entled to recover Rs. 24,00,000/- as penalty from the defendants as per terms and condions of the Page 1 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1977-2025 agreement to sell dated 13.07.2021 along with interest @ 2% P.M. from the date of agreement ll realizaon with a consequenal relief in the shape of mandatory injuncon thereby direcng the respondents to make payment of Rs.24,00,000/- as penalty from the defendants as per terms and condions of the agreement to sell dated 13.07.2021 alongwith an interest @ 2% P.M. from the date of agreement ll realizaon.” 6. It is quite evident from the above said head note that suit of the plainffs-peoners is for recovery of ₹24 lakh and to direct the respondents to pay the said amount along with interest. It is clear that under the garb of suit for declaraon and mandatory injuncon, plainffs-peoners want the decree for recovery. 7. In these circumstances, learned trial Court did not commit any error in direcng the peoners-plainffs to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the claimed amount. No merit. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 01.04.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 2 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document