OMWATI AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad whereby application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") for rejecting the plaint, has been partly allowed and the petitioners -plaintiffs have been directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deed dated 10.11.2010 and Titamanama deed dated 16.11.2010. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that petitioners -plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents challenging sale deed No. 8863 dated 10.11.2010, titamanama deed No. 9184 dated 16.11.2010 and mutation No. 13449 executed in favour of the defendants being illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights, title and interests of the plaintiffs. In pursuance to the notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 put in appearance and moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint as the plaintiffs have failed to pay ad valorem court fee. Vide impugned order dated 07.08.2013, the trial Court allowed the application and the petitioners -plaintiffs have been directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deed dated 10.11.2010 and Titamanama deed dated 16.11.2010. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have only 1/9th share each i.e. total 2/9th share in the property in dispute and they have challenged the sale deed to that extent only.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & others, : 2010 (2) CCC 510 (SC) has held as under: -