POOJA RAJAWAT Vs. SUMAN MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dtd. 18/8/2025 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No.977/2024 by which, an application filed by applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC with regard to non-payment of ad valorem Court fee has been rejected.

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for applicants that respondent had executed a sale deed dtd. 18/11/2021 in favour of present applicants. Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the said sale deed as null and void on the ground that she had never executed the sale deed, but in fact she wanted to execute the mortgage deed. It is further submitted that even in Paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.19,03,000.00 was paid through cheque issued by Loan Awas Finance Ltd. It is submitted that although the respondent had claimed that the sale deed was executed by playing fraud on her but such a stand is nothing, but a camouflage and prima facie false statement on behalf of plaintiff herself. It is submitted that whenever any loan is sanctioned by the Finance Company, then such sanction of loan is preceded by various formalities, including the verification of title, valuation of the property and for those purposes also, separate fee is payable. It is submitted that it is true that in case of a fraud even, the executant can get away from payment of ad valorem Court fee, but the false plea of fraud should not be allowed to be taken in such a lighter manner, so that a clever drafting of plaint may give the benefit of exemption from ad varlorem Court fee.

(3.) Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted by counsel for respondent that respondent wanted to take loan from HDFC Bank and in connection with the same, she had handed over the entire documents to the partner of her son. Since she was a victim of fraud played on her, therefore, she is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manzoor Ahmed v. Jaggi Bai and others reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 182.