Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 2.12.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Nabha, vide which petitioner -plaintiff has been directed to affix ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed dated 5.11.2003 challenged in the suit.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that Sampuran Singh, respondent no.3 -defendant was father of present petitioner, respondents no.1, 2, 4 and 6. Sampuran Singh has since expired. During his life -time he has executed the sale deed dated 5.11.2003 regarding some land in favour of respondents -defendants no.1 and 2. Present petitioner and pro forma respondents no.4 to 6, i.e., plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that the said sale deed executed by Sampuran Singh in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 is illegal, null, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the land in dispute. They have also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents -defendants no.1 and 2 from alienating the suit land, in any manner.
(3.) RESPONDENTS -defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Code') for rejection of the plaint on the plea that requisite court fee was not affixed. It has been alleged that plaintiffs were liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed under challenge. The said application was resisted by plaintiffs. However, learned trial Court vide impugned order held that plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration recited in the sale deed giving rise to the present revision petition.;