Shanti Devi vs Monika and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 8688-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 2027 of 2012

Defendant No. 7-Shanti Devi has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision petition to assail order dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Safidon, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by defendant No. 7-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint instituted by respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs against proforma respondents No. 4 to 9 and petitioner.

Plaintiffs in the suit have challenged various sale deeds and release deeds. Defendant No. 7 in her application Annexure P-1 alleged that plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds failing which plaint is liable to rejection.

Plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P-2 pleaded that they are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee because they are not party to the sale deeds and release deeds under challenge in the suit and they have also not sought the relief of possession.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011 dismissed application Annexure P-1 moved by defendant No. 7-petitioner who has challenged the said order by way of this revision petition.

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

Counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds. The contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, plaintiffs are not party to the sale deeds and release deeds which are under challenge in the suit. Consequently, they are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in the said deeds as rightly held by the trial Court. This view finds support from judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.