HIMANSHU Vs. KAILASH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 227 of th'e Constitution has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court vide which the review application filed by defendant No. 1 was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to affix the ad valorem Court-fees on the impugned sale deed dated 19-4-1993.

(2.) Himanshu plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession with mandatory injunction against the defendants to the effect that the sale deed dated 19-4-1993 executed by his grand father Nihal Chand (defendant No, 2) in favour of defendant No. 1-Smt. Kailash Rani was illegal and void and the same was executed without consideration and legal necessity, based on fraud etc. and was not binding on the plaintiff. The said suit was contested by defendant No. 1, alleging therein that she had purchased the land in question from defendant No. 2-Nihal Chand after paying full consideration of Rs. 1,90.000/- and that the same was legal and valid and the father had the legal necessity to sell the suit land. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the sale deed, since the plaintiff was challenging the legality of the sale deed. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and it was alleged that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid on the value of the sale deed. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court, after placing reliance on 1990 (1) PLR 261 held that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid. Resultantly, the application filed by defendant No. 1 was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 22-10-2002. Thereafter defendant No. 1 filed application for review of the aforesaid order dated 22-10-2002 on the ground that authority 1990 (1) PLR 261 had been wrongly relied upon while passing the order dated 22-10-2002 and the provisions of the Court-Fees Act were ignored. The said application for review filed by defendant No. 1 was contested by the plaintiff on various grounds including the question of delay, maintainability of the review application and also on merits, alleging therein that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned trial Court vide order dated 30-10-2003 reviewed the earlier order dated 22- 10-2002 and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the sale deed dated 19-4-1993. Aggrieved against this order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted before me that no case was made out for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees, in view of the law laid down by this Court in 1990 (1) PLR 261 Gurjeewan Singh v. Jagar Singh and 1987 Rent Rev Reports 373 Tara Singh v. Tarsem Singh. It was further submitted that in any case, no case for reviewing the earlier order dated 22-10-2002 was made out.