INDRA BAKSHI @ INDU Vs. INDRA BUNDI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 10.6.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Faridabad whereby an application moved by the defendant (petitioner herein) under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint for want of payment of sufficient Court fee was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff-respondent has initially filed a suit for declaration to declare her owner in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, plaintiff got amended the plaint thereby adding pleading that Will dated 9.4.2003 and previous judgment/decree dated 3.10.2006 are void and not binding on the plaintiff. Again plaint was got amended pleading therein that during the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1(a) had sold the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1(c) and that sale/alienation during the pendency of the suit is void qua the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant-petitioner has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. before the trial Court saying since sale deed executed by defendant No. 1(a) in favour of defendant No. 1(c) is under challenge, hence, plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1(a) in favour of defendant No. 1(c) during the pendency of the suit. Learned trial Court rejected the application moved by defendant observing that initially suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to declare her to be owner in possession over the property in dispute and sale deed in question is executed during the pendency of suit and same is hit by principle of lis pendense, hence, plaintiff is not supposed to pay Court fee on the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1(c) during the pendency of the suit.