SURINDER SINGH Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha by which an application filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 [for short "the Act"] has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit to challenge sale deed No. 3452 dated 01.01.2008 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of land measuring 6 Bighas 6 Biswas being 126/1599 share out of 79 Bighas 19 Biswas, situated at village Tungan, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The plaintiff had sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction and affixed court fee of Rs. 32.50. The defendants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent has challenged sale deed without affixing ad-valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed and has only sought declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) Although, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued vehemently that the plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem court fee for challenging the sale deed but he could not support his argument with any precedent, rather the Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 2 RCR(Civ) 564 Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2010 has held that in a case where the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the sale deed is null and void being not a party to the sale deed and is also not seeking possession, the plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee but where the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale deed along with consequential relief of possession, he is required to pay ad- valorem court fee. The Apex Court has explained both the circumstances by way of an illustration, which is reproduced as under :-