Rahul and Another vs M/s. Consolidate Relators Pvt. Ltd.

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.12.2012 Annexure P-4 passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application Annexure P-2 filed by defendant-respondent for rejection of plaint Annexure P-1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged three sale deeds dated 01.09.2008 executed by them in favour of defendant inter alia on the ground that at the time of execution of the sale deeds, the plaintiffs were minors and the sale deeds were not executed through any guardian.

Defendant in its application Annexure P-2 alleged that plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in impugned sale deeds and since they have not paid the same, the plaint is liable to rejection.

The plaintiffs in their reply Annexure P-3 opposed the application and pleaded that as per Court Fees Act as applicable to Haryana, for relief of possession of the suit land, the suit has to be valued @ Rs. 30 per acre and court fee has been paid accordingly, besides paying fixed Court fee for the relief of declaration and injunction and, therefore, proper court fee has been paid.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 has allowed the defendant''s application and has directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that since plaintiffs were minors at the time of execution of the sale deeds in question, they cannot be deemed to be party to the said sale deeds and therefore, they are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent contended that impugned sale deeds have been executed by the plaintiffs themselves and therefore, they have been rightly directed to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds.

I have carefully considered the matter. Admittedly, the plaintiffs executed the impugned sale deeds. The question whether they were minors at that time or whether the sale deeds are invalid on the said ground or any other ground, has yet to be adjudicated. Suffice to mention at this stage that plaintiffs are executants of the sale deeds in question. Consequently in view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, , the petitioners/plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the sale deeds under challenge and have been rightly directed to pay the Court fee accordingly. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in 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 is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.