The Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2025 reaffirmed that a defendant cannot challenge a suit for want of ad valorem court fee unless the objection was specifically raised in the written statement. The judgment upholds established precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, particularly in suits involving mandatory injunction and possession.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/3039/2025 of KAMALJEET ALIAS KAMALJIT Vs BALJINDER KAUR |
| CNR | PHHC010920972025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms concurrent findings of lower courts |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure – Court Fee – Suit for Injunction/Possession |
| Questions of Law | Whether the absence of an objection in the written statement regarding deficient ad valorem court fee precludes an appellant from contesting the maintainability of the suit on this ground. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar procedural contexts |
| Follows | Affirms the principle that failure to timely object to court fee bars later procedural challenges |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies and reaffirms that an objection regarding payment of ad valorem court fee must be specifically pleaded in the written statement; failing which, the objection cannot be raised at the appellate stage.
- In cases involving licence and tenancy disputes, documentary evidence (agreement and sale-deed) is determinative.
- Lawyers should advise clients to raise all procedural objections at the earliest opportunity in trial courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first addressed the contention regarding non-payment of ad valorem court fee, finding no such plea in the defendant’s written statement (Annexure A-2).
- The Court highlighted that, since the objection was not taken at any earlier stage, it could not be raised for the first time in the second appeal.
- On merits, the Court examined the agreement (Ex. P-2) and the sale deed (Ex. P-3), holding that the defendant was a licensee, not a tenant, and that the plaintiff validly stepped into the shoes of the previous owner.
- The High Court noted the consistent concurrent findings by both trial and appellate courts and found no justification to disturb them.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Argued that the respondent-plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fee to seek possession of the disputed shop.
Respondent:
- Relied on documentary evidence to establish that the defendant was a licensee, not a tenant.
- Asserted that no objection to court fee was ever raised by the defendant in the written statement.
Factual Background
The plaintiff purchased the disputed shop by sale deed from Harbans Singh, who had inducted the defendant as a licensee under an agreement dated 08.10.2003. After the sale, the plaintiff notified the defendant and sought possession, but the defendant claimed tenancy and refused to vacate. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction (and alternatively, possession). Both the trial and first appellate courts held in the plaintiff’s favour, finding the defendant was a licensee. The defendant, for the first time in second appeal, objected to alleged deficiency of court fee.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Section 151 regarding procedural powers.
- Addressed court fee requirements in possession/injunction suits, emphasizing the procedural rule that objections to court fee must be pleaded at the trial stage in the written statement.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on the necessity of timely objection regarding court fee payments is reaffirmed.