Civil Revision No.1752 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1752 of 2006 Decided on : 27-08-2009 Suresh Garg ....Petitioner VERSUS AVK Papers Limited, New Delhi & others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate with Mr. John Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner(plaintiff) has filed this petition against order dated 20.03.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby he was directed to append the ad valorem Court fee on the plaint within one week from the date of passing of the order; failing which, the plaint of the plaintiff will be deemed to be rejected. While issuing notice of motion, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.03.2006 was stayed. However, proceedings of the suit were ordered to continue. Counsel for the petitioner has informed that the suit is at the stage of defendants evidence. In the present case, the plaintiff (petitioner) filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed bearing Vasika No.24 dated 30.4.2002 executed by defendant Civil Revision No.1752 of 2006 -2- Nos.4 & 5 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3, alleging null and void, inoperative and the result of fraud and misrepresentation and that the same is not binding upon the right of the plaintiff regarding the suit property. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner (plaintiff) is not a party to the sale deed, therefore, he is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv) (b) & (c) of Court- fee Act, 1870, being a third party. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar & Others, 2007 (2) P.L.R. 577. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the petitioner being not a party to the sale deed, which has been challenged by him in the civil suit, is not required to pay the ad valorem Court fee as the provisions of the above-said Sections are not attracted in his case. The controversy involved in this case, is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Hence, this revision petition is allowed and order dated 20.03.2006 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. 27th August, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Monika JUDGE