KAMLESH SONI Vs. SITA RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's revision is directed against the order dated January 28th, 2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, whereby, she was directed to pay the ad-valorum Court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that neither the plaintiff is executant of the sale deeds challenged by her nor is she claiming possession of land. Hence, she is not required to pay ad-valorum Court fee.

(2.) In Tarsem Singh and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others Civil Revision No. 4753 of 2005 decided on January 04, 2011 a Division Bench of this Court after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 AIR(SC) 2807 and a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dara Singh vs. Gurbachan Singh and others (Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009 decided on May 03rd, 2010), while commenting upon the provisions of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, held as under:-

(3.) In this case, the plaintiff is challenging the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of his co-defendants to which she is neither party nor is she claiming possession of land hence, she is not required to pay ad-valorum Court fee. This being so, the revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set-aside. The plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorum Court fee.