G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 09.09.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mansa whereby, the present petitioners-plaintiffs have been directed to fix the court fees at the ad valorem rate while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants-respondents.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently relied upon judgment of this Court in Santosh Malhan and another v. Naina Devi and others, 2014 (3) CCC 157. to contend that in spite of the fact that the sale deed was executed by their attorney, they were not entitled to fix the ad valorem court fees. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the said argument is not liable to be accepted.
(3.) A perusal of the present facts in controversy would go on to show that Iqbal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration that he was in possession of the land in dispute and the sale deed dated 15.09.2009 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of power of attorney was a result of fraud committed by the defendants. It was submitted that the attorney had been given to defendant no. 1, who was married to the younger brother of the plaintiff's wife and was staying with the plaintiff's mother-in-law. The plea was that she being a close relative would not misuse the said attorney. It is further averred that the attorney was cancelled on 24.10.2009 in United Kingdom and then on 22.02.2010 in India. The defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC pleading that court fees of only Rs. 100/- had been paid whereas legally the suit should have been valued at the consideration amount of the sale deed which was Rs. 1,16,00,000/- and the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fees on the value of sale deed in question. The application was opposed by the present petitioners on the ground that there was no need to pay ad valorem court fees and that there was no proof of the consideration amount.;