BALWAN SINGH Vs. PREMO DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of three Civil Revision Nos. 3627 of 2016, 4068 of 2016 and 4071 of 2016 as common question of law and facts are involved. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from Civil Revision No.3627 of 2016.

(2.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby, the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the petition, are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1-Premo Devi filed a suit for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The prayer in the suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and using the alleged agreement, which was executed by the defendants under threat and in an illegal manner, with a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the agreement to sell of property of the plaintiff. An application was moved by the defendant-Balwan Singh under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of suit by mentioning that the plaint has been drafted in a very clever manner just to avoid the court fee. It was also mentioned in the application that the agreement to sell is legal and binding upon the plaintiff and in case, the plaintiff refuses to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant-Balwan Singh, then he is entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through Court. Hence, the plaintiff is required to affix advalorem court fees. Said application was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2016 by holding that plaintiff is not required to affix ad-valorem court fees as the relief sought is for cancellation of agreement to sell.