Court Fee--Sole determining factor for valuation and payment of Court fee--Would be substance of relief sought for and not form

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2004
Amar Singh & Ors.
v.
Jagjit Singh Ors.
{Decided on 07/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.C. Rakhra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Court Fee--Sole determining factor for valuation and payment of Court fee--Would be substance of relief sought for and not form.
Court Fee--Ad-valorem Court fee--Suit for possession claiming himself as owner--Substance in relief sought was cancellation of sale deed--He is required to pay ad-valorem Court fee on sale consideration of sale deed.
(A) Court Fee Act--Ad-valorem court fee--Payment and valuation--Determination of--Cancellation of sale deed--Possession--Relief claimed by plaintiff was possession claiming him self owner--His case was that he did not execut sale deed in favour of defendants but some impostor was put up in his place who executed same--In absence of cancellation of sale deed relief of possession could not be granted--Prima facie signature of plaintiff existed on sale deed--Plaintiff may camouflage form of relief to evade payment of requisite Court fee, but substance thereof might be something else--Therefore, it could not be finally concluded at this stage that plaintiff had not executed sale deed--Court below rightly came into conclusion that on account of substance of relief sought he was liable to pay ad-valorem Court fee on sale consideration. (P.7)
(B) Court Fee Act--Court Fee--Sole determining factor for valuation and payment of Court fee--Would be substance of relief sought for and not form. (P.7)
(C) Court Fee Act--Payment and valuation of--Court is required to look in to averment contained in plaint that what relief in substance is sought--It is not looked into form of the suit for valuation and payment of Court fee. (P.7)
----------
Mana

Plaintiff claimed specific amount and therefore is liable to pay advalorem Court Fee

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 (O&M)
R.S. Malik
v.
Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS & Ors.
{Decided on 07/09/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7, R.11(b)--Court Fee Act, 1870, S.7(1)--Rejection of plaint--Deficient Court Fee--Suit for recovery of damages and cost of eight crore and interest--Suit for purpose of Court Fee valued at Rupees one lac and Court Fee of Rs.3320/- paid--Plaintiff claimed specific amount and therefore is liable to pay advalorem Court Fee--Petitioner granted one month’s time to make good Court Fee. (P.11 & 12)

Court Fee Act, 1870, S.7 (v) (a) (as applicable to the State of Haryana)

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
Civil Revision No.4871 of 2009 (O&M)
Sohan Lal
v.
Manjula Mittal @ Manju Rani & Ors.
{Decided on 11/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 4: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent 2 & 3: None.
Court Fee Act, 1870, S.7 (v) (a) (as applicable to the State of Haryana)--Ad-valorem Court Fee--Contention that petitioner willing to affix ad-valorem Court Fee as per Section 7(v) (a) as applicable to the State of Haryana and that said clause was amended in 1974 by Government of Haryana--Direction to petitioner to a affix the ad valorem court fee on the value of sale deeds set aside--Trial Court directed to asses impact of amended provision of law as applicable to State of Haryana and petitioner to affix Court fee in accordance there of. (P.2 & 6)
---------------