M/S Sankeshwar Hosiery Industries And Anr vs Akki Bai Oswal Trust And Ors

CR-2654-2021 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213
( ) CR-2654-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.10.2026
M/s Sankeshwar Hosiery Industries and Another
… Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Akki Bai Oswal Trust (Regd.) and Others
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Nahush Jain, Advocate
for the respondents.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 22.09.2021
passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, in Civil Suit No.
2454 of 2019, whereby the application (Annexure P-2) filed by the
petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, Respondents No. 1 to 6-plaintiffs instituted a
suit seeking recovery of mesne profits for the period from 17.06.2014 to
18.03.2019, along with interest, costs and consequential reliefs, in respect
of building bearing Municipal No. B-XXIII-113/68/69, Market No. 2,
Oswal Road, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, wherein the petitioners and
proforma respondents-defendants were inducted as tenants. It was averred
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.30 15:39
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2654-2021 (O&M) -:2:-
that the defendants were ordered to be evicted vide order dated 17.09.2014
and that the tenanted premises comprised 4,500 square feet on the first
floor. The plaintiffs claimed that comparable commercial properties in the
vicinity commanded rent at the rate of 110 per square foot per month, ₹
particulars whereof were furnished in the plaint, whereas the erstwhile
contractual rent was merely 500 per month. It was further pleaded that, ₹
notwithstanding the eviction order, the defendants continued in
unauthorised occupation until possession was delivered on 18.03.2019
during the appellate proceedings, upon withdrawal of the appeal.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought mesne profits for the period from
17.09.2014 to 18.03.2019, stated to comprise 54 months. The suit was
instituted on 23.04.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
impugned order is unsustainable in law, as the plaintiffs have claimed
mesne profits at the rate of 110 per square foot per month for the
₹
premises measuring 4,500 square feet, aggregating to 2,67,30,000/-, yet ₹
affixed court fee of merely 50/-. It was argued that, in view of Section
₹
7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1887, the suit was required to be valued in
accordance with the amount claimed, with payment of the requisite ad
valorem court fee. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed
reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Naranjan Singh vs. Kartar
Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 405 , and Ranjit Kaur and others vs. Punjab
State Electricity Board and Another, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 686 .
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.30 15:39
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2654-2021 (O&M) -:3:-
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, controverting the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the
present civil revision petition is not maintainable, as the issue of court fee
essentially concerns the plaintiff and the Court, and the petitioners have
neither suffered any prejudice nor been adversely affected by the impugned
order. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharpoor Singh and
Another vs. Lachhman Singh , Civil Revision No. 226 of 2017 , decided
on 17.01.2017 , wherein it was held that an order pertaining to payment of
court fee does not constitute a revisable order. On this premise, learned
counsel urged that the present petition be dismissed as not maintainable.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
considers it appropriate to examine the legal position enunciated by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharpoor Singh and Another vs.
Lachhman Singh (supra). In the said decision, the Coordinate Bench
undertook a detailed examination of the maintainability of a revision
petition challenging an order concerning payment of court fee, after
considering the relevant judicial precedents rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and various High Courts. Upon an exhaustive analysis of
the applicable legal principles, the Coordinate Bench held as under:-
“ It is pertinent to note here that plaintiff has tentatively assessed
the damages for the purpose of court fee and accordingly, affixed
11,000/- as the court fee on the plaint. Plaintiff had also undertaken to
pay court fee on the awarded amount at the time of passing the final
judgment and decree by learned trial court. Under these circumstances, it
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.30 15:39
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2654-2021 (O&M) -:4:-
can be safely concluded that unless the trial is concluded, learned trial
court would not be in a position to ascertain the exact amount to be
granted to the plaintiff, because that would depend on the evidence to be
led by the parties. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that
learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the defendant-
plaintiff and the impugned order deserves to be upheld, for this reason as
well.
Further, during the course of hearing, when confronted with as to
what kind of prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the defendants by
passing the impugned order, which may warrant interference at the hands
of this Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner had no
answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Thus, following the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vimla's case (supra).
Shamsher Singh's case (supra) as well as by two Full Benches of this
Court in Krishan Kumar Grover's case and Arjan Motor's case (supra), it
is held that no revision petition before this Court would be maintainable
at the hands of the defendants, unless the question of court fee involves
the jurisdiction of court. It is so said, because the issue of court fee,
including its alleged inadequacy. would be primarily between the
plaintiff and the State.
Under such circumstances, defendant cannot be permitted for
stalling the progress of the suit before the learned trial court, because he
is not going to suffer any kind of prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of
court fee paid by the plaintiff. Although it may not be an absolute rule in
every given situation, yet this Court would normally insist asking the
defendant to show his locus standi and right to file and maintain a
revision petition before this Court, against an order passed by learned
trial court, dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.30 15:39
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-2654-2021 (O&M) -:5:-
directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee, in the cases where the
plaintiff is claiming unliquidated damages and the amount of court fee
can always be fixed once the court quantifies the damages, asking the
plaintiff to pay adequate court fee.”
6. In view of the foregoing discussion and the legal principles
enunciated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharpoor Singh and
Another vs. Lachhman Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present revision petition is not maintainable. The
impugned order, relating to payment of court fee, does not warrant
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the
petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable prejudice
occasioned to them thereby. Consequently, the present revision petition is
dismissed as not maintainable .
7. It is clarified that the observations herein are confined to the
issue of maintainability and shall not prejudice the merits of the underlying
dispute or the rights and contentions of either party.
8. In view of the final disposal of the principal proceedings, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
30.10.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.30 15:39
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document