Gurcharan Singh and Others vs Jaspal Kaur and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Plaintiffs are in revision challenging the order passed by learned trial Court on 1.6.2009 whereby an application filed by

Defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was allowed and the Plaintiffs were directed to affix the ad valorem Court fee. Initially, the Plaintiffs

filed an appeal against the said order which was withdrawn on 7.12.2010. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by learned

trial Court by way of present revision petition.

The Plaintiffs has claimed the ownership over land measuring 5 kanals 3 marlas by virtue of a purchase vide sale deed dated 5.8.1960;

ownership of land measuring 29 kanals by virtue of decree dated 18.7.1966 passed by this Court and land measuring 26 kanals 6 marlas on the

basis of possession as Gair Marusi.

The Petitioners have challenged the sale of 25 kanals 11 marlas effected by Defendants No. 1 to 3. It is the said suit, an application was filed by

the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not affixed the requisite Court fee and therefore, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be rejected for non

payment of ad valorem Court fee. It is in the said suit, an order was passed by learned trial Court that the Plaintiffs is required to affix the ad

valorem Court fee.

Learned trial Court found that the Plaintiffs have challenged the three sale deeds and alleged the same to be illegal, unlawful, null and void.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs are required to affix the ad valorem Court fee.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, therefore, the Plaintiffs are not

required to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the amount of the sale deeds challenged in the suit.

The Petitioners have claimed title over the suit property by way of purchase, by way of a decree and on the basis of the possession. The

Petitioners could not point out that the sale of the land, subject matter of challenge is out of which part of the land and how the Petitioners are

claiming the title over the such suit land. But the fact remains that the challenge by the Petitioners is to the sale deed alleging the same to be null and

void. The Petitioners are to claim consequential relief even in a suit for declaration, therefore the Petitioners have been rightly asked to affix ad

valorem Court fee.

Therefore, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in

the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Dismissed.