Anand Sarup vs Surender Singh and Others

Inderjit Singh, J.

Petitioner has filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, allowing the application of the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. directing the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee. It is stated in the petition that petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the ownership and possession of land measuring 110 kanal 10 marla and plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial Court issued interim injunction after appearance of the defendants and vide order dated 12.04.2005, the respondents were restrained to create any type of interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/applicant in the property. It is further stated that the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, 7, Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to get the order of stay complied with as the respondents have been violating the injunction order granted by the trial Court and also for taking action under Order 39 Rule 2-A for attaching his property and to sell his property and compensate the petitioner. As per his calculation, he suffered a loss of Rs. 72,71,650/-.

Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 24.01.2009 allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay the court fee on the amount of Rs. 72,71,650/-, which the applicant-petitioner has claimed as loss and damages to him.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the copy of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A is also placed on record. The perusal of the order shows that in the application, a request was made to the Court to take action against the respondents for violating ad interim injunction and in that application, it is stated that respondents by their acts and conduct have caused loss to the tune of Rs. 72,71,650/- and petitioner has asked the Court to take action by attaching their property or arresting them and by awarding the compensation. A fixed Court fee is to be fixed on the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. Merely, the applicant has assessed the loss caused by the respondents by violating ad interim injunction and has asked for damages along with other remedies to get complied with ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C., in no way, can be treated as a suit for recovery of damages. Therefore, no Court fee can be ordered on this application on the basis of the damages written in that application. It is for the Court to award damages or to attach the property or to arrest the respondents etc. to implement the ad interim injunction order as per law.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 24.01.2009 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani is not as per law and the same is set aside. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is dismissed.