CR-5523-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 Surender Kamra Anjali Kumari Kamra CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the petitioner. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The present revision petition has been Article 227 of the Constitution of India 31.07.2025 (Annexure P Karnal whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 presented by the petitioner has been allowed. 2. In brief, the facts are that and respondent No.1/defendant No. divorce/judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the During the marital relationship, the property bearing the price of the said flat was fixed as Rs. plaintiff has made payment to time to time through relief of permanent injunction whereby he sought transfer of name and also respondent No.1 various occasions -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Surender Kamra Versus Anjali Kumari Kamra and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated .07.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 ted by the petitioner has been allowed. In brief, the facts are that the marriage between the and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was ordered to be dissolved vide decree of divorce/judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the uring the marital relationship, the petitioner- property bearing No.J-102 in the name of respondent No. the said flat was fixed as Rs.23,59,500/ plaintiff has made payment to respondent No.2 on behalf of time to time through various modes. He filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction whereby he sought transfer of pleaded that he gifted gold jewellery of about 120 respondent No.1 at the time of marriage and 240 various occasions during marital relationship. It is further pleaded IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5523-2025 Date of Decision:19.08.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under setting aside the impugned order dated ) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 for rejection of plaint the marriage between the petitioner-plaintiff 1 was ordered to be dissolved vide decree of divorce/judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Karnal. -plaintiff purchased a flat/residential 102 in the name of respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 and 23,59,500/-, out of which the petitioner o.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 from various modes. He filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction whereby he sought transfer of the said house in his pleaded that he gifted gold jewellery of about 120-130 grams 240-250 grams of gold jewellery relationship. It is further pleaded therein IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Petitioner ... Respondents under setting aside the impugned order dated ) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), for rejection of plaint plaintiff 1 was ordered to be dissolved vide decree of , Karnal. plaintiff purchased a flat/residential .2 and petitioner- from various modes. He filed a suit for declaration with consequential house in his grams to of gold jewellery on therein that PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 respondent No.1 Rs.6,00,000/- in Allahabad Bank, Hansi, Dist was joint holder to the extent of another half share. No.1/defendant rejection of plaint on the ground possession of the suit property and is also claiming Rs.6,00,000/- and the gold rules, which he is evading Court vide impugned order dated 31.07.2025, directing the petitioner assess the valuation as wel agreement dated 16.07.2012 and on the specific amount of FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs, being half share of Rs.6 lakhs and thereupon pay the valuation till the next date of hearing, failing which the order of rejection of plaint shall be made absolute. Hence, the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that erred in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 statement and the aforesaid application has been filed after expiry of three years. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4570 of 2023 titled as Ltd. Vs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another filed under Order 7 Rule thereof, after about 10 years of the institution of the suit was dismissed contended that deficiency of court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, the learned tr of directing the petitioner -2- pondent No.1/defendant No. 1 was given half share in the FDRs amounting to in Allahabad Bank, Hansi, District Hisar, in which Smt. Krish was joint holder to the extent of another half share. No.1/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that since the petitioner possession of the suit property and is also claiming and the gold jewellery, he is liable to pay , which he is evading. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.07.2025, directing the petitioner assess the valuation as well as payment of court fees on the sale consideration of agreement dated 16.07.2012 and on the specific amount of FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs, being half share of Rs.6 lakhs and thereupon pay the valuation till the next date of hearing, failing which the order of rejection of plaint shall be made absolute. Hence, the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ignoring the fact that respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has already filed the written statement and the aforesaid application has been filed after expiry of three years. In contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4570 of 2023 titled as Ltd. Vs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another on 11.09.2024 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint under Clauses (a) and (d) after about 10 years of the institution of the suit was dismissed contended that deficiency of court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have framed the issue in this regard of directing the petitioner to assess the correct valuation of the suit and after assessing /defendant No. 1 was given half share in the FDRs amounting to rict Hisar, in which Smt. Krishna Devi was joint holder to the extent of another half share. In the said suit, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking that since the petitioner-plaintiff wants to get back possession of the suit property and is also claiming specific amount of FDR i.e. he is liable to pay ad valorem court fees as per The said application has been allowed by the learned trial impugned order dated 31.07.2025, directing the petitioner-plaintiff to l as payment of court fees on the sale consideration of agreement dated 16.07.2012 and on the specific amount of FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs, being half share of Rs.6 lakhs and thereupon pay the ad valorem court fee on the said valuation till the next date of hearing, failing which the order of rejection of plaint shall be made absolute. Hence, the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, while completely defendant No.1 has already filed the written statement and the aforesaid application has been filed after expiry of three years. In contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4570 of 2023 titled as M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. on 11.09.2024 where the application 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint under Clauses (a) and (d) after about 10 years of the institution of the suit was dismissed. It is further contended that deficiency of court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and, ial Court ought to have framed the issue in this regard, instead to assess the correct valuation of the suit and after assessing /defendant No. 1 was given half share in the FDRs amounting to na Devi In the said suit, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking plaintiff wants to get back specific amount of FDR i.e. court fees as per learned trial plaintiff to l as payment of court fees on the sale consideration of agreement dated 16.07.2012 and on the specific amount of FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs, being court fee on the said valuation till the next date of hearing, failing which the order of rejection of plaint the learned trial Court has , while completely defendant No.1 has already filed the written statement and the aforesaid application has been filed after expiry of three years. In contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. where the application 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint under Clauses (a) and (d) . It is further contended that deficiency of court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and, instead to assess the correct valuation of the suit and after assessing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 said valuation, to pay issue is decided against the petitioner, he can be asked to make good the deficiency of court fee. 4. Heard. 5. The Head note: injunction and mandatory injunction.” Prayer: that the plaintiff is the exclusive actual and legal owner of Flat No.J Ras Residency, Karnal, District Karnal and further passing a d mandatory injunction issuing a direction to the defendant No.2 to incorporate, change/insert name of the plaintiff in place of defendant No.1 and 3 in the entire relevant allotment record of the said further directing the defendant No.1 mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint above and further to return aforesaid amount of FDR duly mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint alongwith interest @18% may kindly in the interest of justice with costs of the suit keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances.” 6. It is also apt to reproduce para No under:- “5. That the plaintiff has paid near about 70% of the sale consideration of the above mentioned flat to the defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1, but as the agreement to sell as well as the other executed in the name of the defendant property is lying recorded in the name of defendant No.1. xxxx -3- said valuation, to pay ad valorem court fee on such valuation. decided against the petitioner, he can be asked to make good the deficiency of Heard. The head note and prayer sought in the suit is reproduced as under: Head note: “Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.” Prayer: “It is therefore prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the exclusive actual and legal owner of Flat No.J Ras Residency, Karnal, District Karnal and further passing a d mandatory injunction issuing a direction to the defendant No.2 to incorporate, change/insert name of the plaintiff in place of defendant No.1 and 3 in the entire relevant allotment record of the said further directing the defendant No.1 mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint above and further to return aforesaid amount of FDR duly mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint alongwith interest @18% from the date of accrued till its realization may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice with costs of the suit keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances.” It is also apt to reproduce para No “5. That the plaintiff has paid near about 70% of the sale consideration of the above mentioned flat to the defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1, but as the agreement to sell as well as the other executed in the name of the defendant property is lying recorded in the name of defendant No.1. xxxx xxxx court fee on such valuation. If at the final stage, the decided against the petitioner, he can be asked to make good the deficiency of prayer sought in the suit is reproduced as under:- Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.” “It is therefore prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the exclusive actual and legal owner of Flat No.J- Ras Residency, Karnal, District Karnal and further passing a decree for mandatory injunction issuing a direction to the defendant No.2 to incorporate, change/insert name of the plaintiff in place of defendant No.1 and 3 in the entire relevant allotment record of the said plot and further directing the defendant No.1 to return the entire gold jewellery as mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint above and further to return aforesaid amount of FDR duly mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint from the date of accrued till its realization be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice with costs of the suit keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances.” It is also apt to reproduce para Nos.5 & 11 of the plaint, which are as “5. That the plaintiff has paid near about 70% of the sale consideration of the above mentioned flat to the defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1, but as the agreement to sell as well as the other documents were executed in the name of the defendant No.1 and as such, the said property is lying recorded in the name of defendant No.1. xxxx xxxx If at the final stage, the decided against the petitioner, he can be asked to make good the deficiency of Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent “It is therefore prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect -102, ecree for mandatory injunction issuing a direction to the defendant No.2 to incorporate, change/insert name of the plaintiff in place of defendant plot and to return the entire gold jewellery as mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint above and further to return the aforesaid amount of FDR duly mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint from the date of accrued till its realization be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice with costs of the suit keeping in view the .5 & 11 of the plaint, which are as “5. That the plaintiff has paid near about 70% of the sale consideration of the above mentioned flat to the defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant documents were the said PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 11. implead Smt. Poonam Rani wife of Shri Madan Lal as defendant No.3, as the defe defendant No.3 wrongly and illegally.” 7. A perusal of petitioner-plaintiff of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction paras No.5 and 6 of the plaint which the petitioner seeks to get back the possession, has been sold by No.1-defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 been created and the subsequent purchaser has already been impleaded as defendant No.3, the petitioner prayer is made for cancellation of sale deed Since the petitioner possession and he is seeking not only a declaration that the sale deed is invali also the consequential relief of possession, provided under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1970. (see Sardool Singh Vs. (see Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others petitioner-plaintiff is also claiming specific amount i.e. half of Rs.6 lakhs as lying deposited in the FDR i.e. petitioner that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has opted to file written statement first and thereafter, moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint also falls flat, as the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage Ventures Pvt. Ltd. stage when both the parties had led their evidence and the suit was ripe for hearing the -4- 11. That the Hon’ble court vide order dated 20.09.2023 has ordered to implead Smt. Poonam Rani wife of Shri Madan Lal as defendant No.3, as the defendant No.1 has sold the property in question in favour of defendant No.3 wrongly and illegally.” A perusal of head note and prayer clause plaintiff has filed a simplicitor suit for declaration with consequent of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction paras No.5 and 6 of the plaint, as reproduced above which the petitioner seeks to get back the possession, has been sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 and when the third party rights have already been created and the subsequent purchaser has already been impleaded as defendant the petitioner-plaintiff is indirectly challenging the said sale deed prayer is made for cancellation of sale deed or declaring the same as null and void Since the petitioner-plaintiff is the non-executant of the sale deed possession and he is seeking not only a declaration that the sale deed is invali also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1970. (see Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others (2010) 12 SCC 112). plaintiff is also claiming specific amount i.e. half of Rs.6 lakhs as lying deposited in the FDR i.e. Rs.3 lakhs. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has opted to file written statement rst and thereafter, moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint also falls flat, as the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage of the suit before conclusion of the trial. In es Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed at the stage when both the parties had led their evidence and the suit was ripe for hearing the That the Hon’ble court vide order dated 20.09.2023 has ordered to implead Smt. Poonam Rani wife of Shri Madan Lal as defendant No.3, as ndant No.1 has sold the property in question in favour of defendant No.3 wrongly and illegally.” head note and prayer clause of the plaint reveals that the filed a simplicitor suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. However, a conjoint reading of as reproduced above, reveals that the suit property of which the petitioner seeks to get back the possession, has been sold by respondent and when the third party rights have already been created and the subsequent purchaser has already been impleaded as defendant plaintiff is indirectly challenging the said sale deed, though no or declaring the same as null and void executant of the sale deed and is not in possession and he is seeking not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid but he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1970. (see Suhrid Singh @ (2010) 12 SCC 112). Furthermore, plaintiff is also claiming specific amount i.e. half of Rs.6 lakhs as lying The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has opted to file written statement rst and thereafter, moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint also falls flat, as the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be of the suit before conclusion of the trial. In M/s Bhagya Estate the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed at the stage when both the parties had led their evidence and the suit was ripe for hearing the That the Hon’ble court vide order dated 20.09.2023 has ordered to implead Smt. Poonam Rani wife of Shri Madan Lal as defendant No.3, as ndant No.1 has sold the property in question in favour of of the plaint reveals that the ial relief . However, a conjoint reading of the suit property of respondent and when the third party rights have already been created and the subsequent purchaser has already been impleaded as defendant ugh no or declaring the same as null and void. and is not in d but he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as Suhrid Singh @ Furthermore, the plaintiff is also claiming specific amount i.e. half of Rs.6 lakhs as lying The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has opted to file written statement rst and thereafter, moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint also falls flat, as the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be M/s Bhagya Estate the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed at the stage when both the parties had led their evidence and the suit was ripe for hearing the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5523-2025 final arguments and in that eventuality, the application was dismissed. In the case i hand, only written statement has been filed and issues are yet to be framed, meaning thereby, trial is yet to commence. 8. In view of the above, the learned trial Court does not require any interference and the same is upheld. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed. August 19, 2025 Pankaj* -5- final arguments and in that eventuality, the application was dismissed. In the case i only written statement has been filed and issues are yet to be framed, meaning trial is yet to commence. In view of the above, the impugned order dated learned trial Court does not require any interference and the same is upheld. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable final arguments and in that eventuality, the application was dismissed. In the case i only written statement has been filed and issues are yet to be framed, meaning impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference and the same is upheld. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No final arguments and in that eventuality, the application was dismissed. In the case in only written statement has been filed and issues are yet to be framed, meaning passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference and the same is upheld. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh