JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 24th December, 1997, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panchkula, who on the objection raised by the defendants directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee on the entire sale consideration of the agreement to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs, for which the said agreement was executed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Madhulesh Kumar Shishodia filed a suit for possession of the agreement to sell dated 19th April, 1991 extended on 17th October, 1991 extended on 17th October, 1991 up to 31st March, 1992 and agreement dated 28th September, 1993 executed by defendant No. I through her attorney defendant No. 2, in respect of her land, situated in village Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, Dislrict Ambala. It was prayed by the plaintiff that directions be given to defendant No. 1 to execute the sale agreement either in person or through her attorney in respect of 595 sq. yds of area or any other area bearing Khasra No. 271/1 (2B-2B), 272 (B-2B) and one plot measuring 80′ x 60′ situated in Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka District Ambala on payment of nil amount and a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift deed dated 26th August, 1996 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3, in respect of shop No. 65 to the extent of 8 biswas situated in the aforesaid land vide registered document No. 769/1 on 26th August, 1996 and the gift deed executed by defendant No. ! in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of shop No. 66 to the extent of 8 biswas registered on 26th August, 1996, are illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not bound by this gift deed. The plaintiff also prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in his favour against these defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants be further restrained from attenating the suit in any manner. The plaintiff also prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 3,54,227/- received by them in excess. The plaintiff while affixing the Court fee only paid the Court fee with respect to the market value of the plot regarding which he was asked for the specific performance.
3. Objections were raised that the suit of the plaintiff is not valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has to further pay the Court fee only on the entire sale consideration of the agreement which was to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs. Vide the impugned order dated 24th December, 1997, the objections of the defendants was upheld and it was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee on the entire consideration of the agreement which was of Rs. 30 lacs. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision.
4. I have heard Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
5. It may be mentioned that earlier, this revision came up for consideration before my Lord Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K, Bali, who was pleased to pass the following
order on 27th October, 1999 :-
“There was no question of paying Court fee on the entire amount, mentioned in the agreement of sale when the plaintiff/respondents were only asking for a share in the property. Concededly, on the share demanded by him, Court fee has been accordingly paid.
No merits. Dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.K. Bali)
Judge”
The petitioner fifed a Civil Misc No. 17972-CII of 1999 and prayed that as the recall of the order dsted 27th October, 1999 was for the benefit of the petitioner himself, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali ought to have allowed the revision. This application came up for consideration before my Lord on 21st July, 2000 and His Lordship was pleased to recall the order dated 27th October, 1999 and directed the parties to address the arguments in the main revision itself.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the-petitioner/plaintiff was supposed to pay the Court fee on the market value of the plot regarding which he was claiming specific performance of the contract. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as per provisions of Section 7 sub-clause 9 of the Court fee Act, in a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale, the plaintiff is supposed to pay the Court fee according to the amount of the contract. Mr. Sharma submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to split on the agreement for his benefit. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge is in-accordance with law.
7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion, the plaintiff was liable to pay the Court fee with regard to the area regarding which he was asking for possession by way of specific performance and not on the entire sale consideration. Even reading of Section 7 of subsection (10) shows that the plaintiff was required to pay the Court fee according to the amount of the contract. The word ‘consideration’ appearing in the subsection is of considerable importance. Since the plaintiff seeks specific performance with regard to a particular portion of the land he cannot be called upon to pay the Court fee on the entire value of the agreement i.e. Rs. 30 lacs.
In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Of course, the trial Court will ensure that the plaintiff must pay the Court fee according to law with regard to the other claims such as declaration and for the return of the amount.
8. Revision allowed.