URMILA Vs. SANJEEV DALAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner -defendant No. 2 to the suit, that the plaintiff should pay ad valorem court fee, has been rejected.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the minor son of defendant No. 1 - Jagdish Chander. According to the Counsel, Jagdish Chander had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner -defendant No. 2. Plaintiff has sought annulment/cancellation of the sale deed being not binding upon him. He has also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction praying that the petitioner -defendant No. 2 be restrained from alienating the suit land in any form.

(3.) MS . Promila Nain, Counsel for the petitioner, had made a valiant effort to distinguish the judgment by saying that in the present case, the consequential relief of permanent injunction has been sought, therefore, plaintiff -respondent should pay the ad valorem court fee. This argument cannot be accepted. In view of the given situation, the case will fall under Section 7(iv)(d) and not under Section 7(iv)(c). It is only where the case falls under Section 7(iv)(c), ad valorem court fee is to be paid.