KUMAR SOUMYAKANTA BISOI Vs. BANITA PANDA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 9.11.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul in C.S. No.267 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the application of the defendant no.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(c) C.P.C. and directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fees.

(2.) Since the dispute lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to recount in detail the cases of the parties. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted the suit for declaration of title and declaration that the sale deed dated 03.04.2010 executed by him in favour of defendant no.1 as null and void. The defendant no.1 entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, the defendant no.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(c) C.P.C. stating inter alia that the plaintiff has instituted the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed as void. Though the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.33,99,000/-, i.e., the consideration amount of the sale deed, but paid declaratory court fees on the plaint instead of ad-valorem court fees. The plaintiff is the executant of the sale deed. He seeks its cancellation. He has to pay ad-valorem court fees. Plaintiff filed objection to the said application. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is the executant of the sale deed bearing No.10011001803 dated 03.04.2010. He seeks relief of cancellation of the sale deed. Thus he has to pay the ad-valorem court fees. Held so, it directed the plaintiff to pay the ad-valorem court fees.

(3.) Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner.