SHEKHER DHAWAN,J - (1.) - Present petition is challenge to the order dated 28.1.2015, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka whereby application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was allowed and plaintiffs were directed to pay ad valorem court fee.
(2.) Relevant facts of the case that plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.3.2013 and during pendency of the suit, application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiffs arbitrarily valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, whereas they have sought specific performance of the agreement and valuation of the entire property was settled at Rs.
(3.) ,75,00,000/- and plaintiffs agreed to sell their remaining share in the property in dispute worth Rs. 2,75,00,000/- in favour of the defendants. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that parties to the litigation are owners of Shah Palace situated at Rampura, Tehsil Fazilka and they are family members. Petitioners have 60% share in the suit property and share of the respondents is to the extent of 40%, total value of the suit property was Rs. 3,75,00,000/-. On the basis of agreement of sale dated 20.3.2013, the petitioners had agreed to sell their share to the extent of 60% share in the land to the present respondents in lieu of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. It was also settled that in case petitioners refused to execute the sale deed, in that eventuality, they would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. However, while deciding application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the Court below failed to consider the fact that specific performance was sought only to the extent of ?rd share of the 40% share of the defendants, which amounts to Rs. 50,00,000/- and the court fee, as per the rate of Rs. 50,00,000/-, has already been affixed and the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Madras High Court in case D. Nagaraj v. A.Devaraj 2014 (2) CTC 256.;