- (1.) The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the order dated 20.7.2013 whereby the application filed by the defendants-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on account of non-payment of ad valorem court fee has been allowed.
(2.) Mr. R. P. Daria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as per the averments made in the plaint Annexure P-1 the suit has been filed claiming declaration that they are owners in possession of land as described therein and as well as for setting aside of the sale deeds allegedly executed by their father Bachan Singh, their predecessor in interest. In essence, the relief is also for permanent injunction, therefore, the ratio decidendi relied upon by the trial court in Yuvraj and others Vs. Balwant Singh and others, 2006 144 PunLR 208 would not be applicable whereas that of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 AIR(SC) 2807 shall be applied and thus, prays for setting aside of the order.
(3.) Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the sale deed has been executed by none else but by father of the plaintiffs. It tantamounts for setting aside of the sale deed since father was predecessor in interest, therefore, the plaintiffs would be party to the sale deed, therefore, are required to pay ad valorem court fee, thus, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.;