V.K. Jhanji, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 15.5.1989 of the Additional Senior Sub Judge. Faridabad, whereby petition -ers have been directed to make good the deficiency in court -fee by way of filing requisite court -fee on Rs. 5.39,173,60 less Rs.25/ - which has already been affixed by them.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that respondent Punjab National Bank, filed suit for recovery of Rs. 7,44,023.10P against the petitioners. Suit was partly decreed in the light of admission made by the petitioners and a decree for Rs. 5,39,173.60P was passed. No appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the said decree. The present suit came to be filed by the petitioners against the decree passed in favour of the bank on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. In the alternative, petitioners sought permanent injunction restraining the respondent -bank from executing the decree. Defendants in their written statement denied that the decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. They contended that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction. Trial Court on the objection of the defendants, found that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction and vide the impugned order held that the petitioner are liable to make good the deficiency in court -fee by 5.6.1989 by way of filing requisite court -fee on Rs, 5,39,173,60P less Rs. 25/ - already affixed by them. In the present revision petition, the only submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that since the decree has been challenged on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, petitioners are not liable to pay ad -valorem court -fee. I find no merit in this contention of the counsel. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Surat Singh v. Jagdish and Ors. : 1979 81 PLR 82, whereby this Court has held that where the suit was brought for cancellation of the decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and the plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree, the plaintiff is required to pay ad -valorem court -fee.
(3.) IN view of the law settled by this Court in Surat Singh 's case (supra), order under revision is not to be interfered with. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Plaintiffs are directed to make good the deficiency in court fee within one month from today failing which the trial Court shall proceed with to reject their plaint.;