GAJNA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Smt. Gajna feeling aggrieved by order dated 9.9.2010, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order. Plaintiff - petitioner has filed suit challenging release deed dated 28.8.2006 allegedly executed by her on the ground of fraud etc. Defendants moved application Annexure P/2 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for direction to the petitioner - plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit property. Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/3 opposed the said application. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the release deed has been challenged on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff - petitioner is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee. The contention cannot be accepted. Plaintiff - petitioner is party to the release deed in question having allegedly executed the same. Consequently, the plaintiff - petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee. In this view, I am supported by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & others, 2010 AIR(SC) 2807. Consequently, the plaintiff - petitioner has been rightly directed by the trial court to pay ad valorem court fee. There is no infirmity much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.