Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner -defendant No. 2 to the suit, that the plaintiff should pay ad valorem court fee, has been rejected.
(2.) PLAINTIFF is the minor son of defendant No. 1 - Jagdish Chander. According to the Counsel, Jagdish Chander had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner -defendant No. 2. Plaintiff has sought annulment/cancellation of the sale deed being not binding upon him. He has also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction praying that the petitioner -defendant No. 2 be restrained from alienating the suit land in any form. Admittedly, consequential relief of possession has not been sought. Learned trial court relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., 2010 (2) PLR 707 to hold that where a non -executant, to avoid sale deed, seeks its cancellation, and the consequential relief of possession is not sought, he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. A Division Bench of this Court, on a reference made by a Single Judge in Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009 (Dara Singh v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors.), decided on 3rd May, 2010, had placed reliance upon Suhrid Singh's case (supra) and held that if non -executant of the sale deed seeks a declaration that the sale deed be cancelled and he has not sought the consequential relief of possession, in that case, he will be exempted to pay ad valorem court fee in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It will be apposite to here reproduce para 6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh's case (supra): 6. ... But, if 'B', a non executant is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suit for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where a suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
(3.) MS . Promila Nain, Counsel for the petitioner, had made a valiant effort to distinguish the judgment by saying that in the present case, the consequential relief of permanent injunction has been sought, therefore, plaintiff -respondent should pay the ad valorem court fee. This argument cannot be accepted. In view of the given situation, the case will fall under Section 7(iv)(d) and not under Section 7(iv)(c). It is only where the case falls under Section 7(iv)(c), ad valorem court fee is to be paid.;