Meera Rani vs Vikasarjun and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No. 2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-5), passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) filed by defendant No. 2 -- petitioner for rejection of plaint due to nonpayment of proper court fee. In the suit, respondent No. 1 -- plaintiff has inter alia assailed Will executed by Ram Sarup in favour of plaintiffs brother defendant No. 1/proforma respondent No. 2 and the consequent sale deed dated 03.12.2012 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2.

Defendant No. 2, in her application (Annexure P-4), alleged that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of impugned sale deed dated 03.12.2012.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the aforesaid sale deed is under challenge in the suit, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration thereof. The contention cannot be accepted in view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, because the plaintiff is admittedly not party to the impugned sale deed. Consequently, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of impugned sale deed dated 03.12.2012. Here it may also be noticed that the plaintiff in plaint (Annexure P-3) has also not claimed the relief of possession of the suit property.

In the aforesaid circumstances, trial court has rightly held that the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of impugned sale deed and application filed by defendant No. 2 -- petitioner for rejection of plaint due to non-payment of proper court fee has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the 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. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.