VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on non-payment of ad valorem court-fee. The learned Court below as held as under :- "The plaintiff has intelligently worded the plaint and has sought relief of mandatory injunction for directing the defendants not to claim themselves as owners of the suit land and has further sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. For the purpose of deciding the relief claimed in the plaint, it would be essential to decide the legality and illegality of the sale-deed 4.10.2001 which has been challenged by the plaintiff as being a result of fraud. By seeking relief of mandatory injunction a clear attempt has been made by the plaintiff to avoid payment of ad valorem court-fee. It is settled law for deciding the question of court-fee the Court should look into the allegations in the plaint to find out the substantive relief asked for and if the main relief is of cancellation of sale-deed on the ground of fraud, then the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the basis of consideration amount in the sale-deed. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present controversy. The plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale-deed on the ground of fraud, therefore, he is liable to affix ad valorem court-fee on the plaint on the basis of sale consideration. Accordingly the application is allowed." It is not in dispute that while seeking the relief of injunction, the petitioner has also challenged sale-deed to be outcome of fraud, therefore, not binding on him. Consequently, the learned trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the ad valoerm court- fee as the sale-deed was challenged. There is no illegality in this order which may call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;