- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P5), passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Faridabad, whereby the application filed by defendant No. 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed, on account of the fact that cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint and that the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deed dated 22.12.2010, which is challenged and neither they are claiming possession. Thus, the requirement of affixing ad valorem Court fees is not needed and the suit is within limitation as the lease receipt is dated 12.02.2008 and the sale deed is dated 22.12.2010, whereas the suit is filed on 22.12.2011.
(2.) The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that once cancellation of the sale deed is prayed for, the petitioner is also impliedly seeking possession of the plots and therefore, the Court was not justified in dismissing the application. It is, accordingly, submitted that they were required to pay ad valorem Court fees as they had prayed for cancellation of the sale deed and therefore, the substantive relief, as prayed for, should have been looked into. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & others, 2010 12 SCC 112, which has been followed by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Tarsem Singh & others Vs. Vinod Kumar & others,2014 1 ICC 1054.
(3.) A perusal of the plaint filed by respondents No.1 to 6 would go on to show that they filed the suit for declaration of consequential relief of permanent injunction mainly on the ground that defendants No.1 to 5 had advertised the prelaunched scheme of Group Housing Society in the month of 2005 and allured the public at large on the strength of a licence No.70/2010, issued by the Department of Town & Country Planning. The plaintiffs being interested to purchase the plots at the sectors proposed in resale, had purchased plots and the same had been transferred vide receipt dated 12.02.2008, against a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in one case. Similar instances were also given regarding other plaintiffs also. When the plaintiffs had approached the said defendants for documents of transfer of plots in their favour and on account of non-allotment and non-delivery of possession, a criminal complaint had been filed against them in the Court of the JMIC, Faridabad and even an FIR was registered on 23.07.2011 under various provisions of the IPC. A legal notice had been sent on coming to know that the defendants No.1 to 5 are going to sell their projects to defendant No.6 and get the licence transferred and on 30.08.2011, they came to know that vide sale deed dated 22.11.2010, the defendants No.1 to 5 had sold the land/project and even a mutation had been recorded in favour of defendant No.6. Accordingly, request had been made to the said defendant not to further allot the same as they had already purchased the plots and flats and not to raise construction.;