Civil Revision No. 840 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 840 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.05.2009. M/s Reliance Haryana SEZ Ltd. Petitioner Versus Shiv Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Samrath Sagar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondent no.2. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.2008 vide which the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon rejected a plea filed by the subsequent vendee, under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., for a direction to the plaintiff therein (respondent no.1 before this Court) to file ad-valorem court fee. The facts, having relevant bearing on the controversy, are as under:- The plaintiff-respondent no.1 Shiv Kumar and defendant- respondent Sri Kishan are co-sharers in the land detailed in the plaint. The defendant-respondent No.2 sold off his half share therein vide registered sale deed dated 31.10.2008. On account thereof, the Civil Revision No. 840 of 2009 -2- **** purchaser from defendant-respondent no.2 became joint owner in possession with the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in equal share. It came to the notice of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 that his share too had been mutated in favour of defendant-respondent no2 on the basis of a sale deed. He obtained a copy of the relevant mutation and found that the information furnished to him was correct. The mutation had been entered on the basis of a sale deed dated 28.8.1989 purporting to have been executed by the plaintiff- respondent no.1 himself. Infact, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 had never executed the averred sale deed. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to obtain the invalidation of that sale deed as someone else impersonated him in the transaction aforementioned. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant- respondent no.1 sold the land of his share to the petitioner herein for a consideration of Rs.2,98,92,500/-. It is thereafter that the petitioner/subsequent vendee filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. It is common ground otherwise that the sale effected by the defendant-respondent no.2 was in violation of an order vide which the Civil Court had restrained the defendant-respondent from alienating the land in suit. It is, thus, apparent that the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. had been filed by the petitioner who is a subsequent vendee during the pendency of the suit and the sale in his favour was in Civil Revision No. 840 of 2009 -3- **** violation of the restraint orders issued by the Court. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the impugned order deserves invalidation inasmuch as the challenge therein was for the setting aside of sale deed in favour of the petitioner and that being so the plaintiff- respondent no.1 had to compulsively pay ad-valorem court fee. The plea raised is denuded of merit. The essential relief applied for by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 at the trial was for the invalidation of the sale deed dated 28.8.1989. It may be indicated here, even at the cost of repetition, that the plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed that plea on an averment that he had not, infact, executed the impugned sale deed and that someone else impersonated him at the transaction under challenge. The Civil court had restrained the defendant-respondent no.2 from (further)alienating the land in suit. However, he violated that order and sold the land in suit in favour of the petitioner-builder. Under these circumstances, the plea raised under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was appropriately found to be misconceived and rejected by the learned Trial Court. Allowing the plea would have, in a way, amounting to validating the violation of the stay order (in the context of alienation restraint granted by the Civil Court). Even otherwise, the petitioner-builder could acquire only that title which the defendant-respondent no.1 was ultimately found to have in the land in suit. If the Civil Court records a finding at the trial that the impugned sale deed was a sham transaction, the claim raised by the petitioner-builder would fall in toto and it would not be Civil Revision No. 840 of 2009 -4- **** deemed to have acquired any title in the land in suit. The advocated view regarding the payment ad-valorem court fee is not supportable by any manner of interpretation. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 08, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge