C.R.No.5120 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5120 of 2008 Decided on August 05, 2009. Karan Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Bijender Singh and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondentss. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that sale deed dated 13.06.2000, is illegal, null and void, on the ground that a fraud has been played by the defendants-respondents upon the plaintiff. The defendants-respondents had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for a direction to the petitioner to pay Court fee on the sale consideration of Rs.8,25,000/- and the said . . . 1 C.R.No.5120 of 2008 application was allowed vide order dated 28.03.2006, directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on Rs.8,25,000/-. The said order led the petitioner to file an application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC. In his application, he pleaded that he is a poor person and not possessed of sufficient means. After obtaining report of the Collector, the trial Court observed that out of 40 kanals of land owned by him, he has sold 13 kanals 1 marla. No appeal against the order on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was filed but the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, was filed which has been dismissed by a common order dated 31.05.2008, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendant- respondent. It is pertinent to observe here that the order rejecting the application for permission to sue as an indigent person is appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) CPC. The petitioner has not opted to file any appeal against the order but since the application of the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for dismissal of the suit for want of Court fee has been allowed, the plaintiff cannot file an appeal against the said order under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) CPC. The sole point which is required to be determined in this case is, whether the petitioner is required to affix ad valorem Court fee, as he is challenging the validity of a registered document. In this context, counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982, PLR, Page 127, the Full bench Judgment of this Court, in which it was held that in case the . . . 2 C.R.No.5120 of 2008 main relief in the suit is held to be the cancellation of sale deed the case is not covered by Section 7(1)(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It is settled principle of law that that the Court in deciding the question of Court fee should look into the allegations made in the plaint to find out what is the substantive relief that is asked for. A perusal of the plaint in the present case indicates that the plaintiff has claimed that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute and that he has not sold the same vide sale deed dated 13.06.2000. The plaintiff has not claimed possession of the property in dispute, as such, the matter will be covered by the decision of this Court in Krishna Devi and another Vs.Jaswant Singh, 2006(4) RCR (Civil), page 563, in which taking into consideration Niranjan Kaur's case, it was held that when the plaintiff challenges the sale deed and claims a decree for permanent injunction only and the relief of possession is not the consequential relief, ad valorem Court fee will not be payable. In Niranjan Kaur's case (supra), the plaintiff had sought the consequential relief of possession in a suit for declaration as the plaintiff was not in possession. It was held in Niranjan Kaur's case that under said circumstances only when possession is claimed as a consequential relief, the ad valorem Court-fee is required to be paid as contemplated under Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act. The facts and circumstances of the present case are covered by the ratio of Krishna Devi and another's case (supra). Since the plaintiff has not claimed possession as a consequential relief and he has challenged the sale deed regarding agricultural . . . 3 C.R.No.5120 of 2008 land in Haryana, ad valorem Court fee will not be payable. The impugned order dated 31.05.2008, is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, for further proceedings, in the case on 12.09.2009. The revision petition is allowed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 05, 2009. rka . . . 4