CIVIL REVISION NO.979 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 18, 2008 Satbir .....Petitioner VERSUS Kanwar Lal and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, challenging the validity of the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.462 of 1990. Besides, the respondents also sought relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession flowing from challenge to the validity of the judgment and decree afore-mentioned. Four sale deeds in favour of petitioner (defendant No.2) were also challenged as a consequential relief. The petitioner CIVIL REVISION NO.979 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the plaint on the ground that the required ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land depicted in the sale deed was not a fixed as required under law. The respondents filed reply to the application filed by the petitioner, opposing the same besides stating that the application is moved with malafide intention. The trial Court has rejected this application filed by the petitioner mainly on two counts. It is noticed that suit is filed in the year 1998 and the issues were framed on 25.7.1998. No such issue was claimed at that time. The respondent-plaintiffs had led major part of his evidence. It is otherwise noticed that having regard to the nature of relief claimed, the respondents are not required to fix the ad-valorem court fee. The main challenge in the suit is to the validity of the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1990 passed in civil suit No.462 of 1990. The declaration about the sale deed is dependent upon the claim made in regard to a judgment and decree in the suit. If the judgment and decree suffered by Pat Ram is found to be wrong and illegal, then it would have effect on the sale deed. Thus, the validity and legality of these sale deeds would depend upon the outcome of the suit in regard to the judgment and decree impugned by the respondents. It is, thus, seen that challenge to the sale deed is only as a consequential relief and would depend upon the outcome of the suit, where the validity and legality of the decree is challenged in the CIVIL REVISION NO.979 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: suit. The suit is otherwise also of the year 1998 and no such issues were claimed. The application has now been filed at this belated stage, which can not be said to be free from malice as alleged in the reply filed by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Yuv Raj and others Vs. Balwant Singh and others, 2006 (3) PLR 208. In Yuv Raj's case (supra), suit was for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed. It was held that the plaintiff in the said case was required to pay ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. The ratio of law, as laid down in the said case, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Here the main challenge is to the judgment and decree and the relief regarding the sale deed would be a consequential to the main relief claimed in the suit. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shri Dadu Dayal Trust and others, 2007 (1) PLR 584, has held that where the cancellation of a sale deed is by way of consequential relief and not a substantive relief, then ad-valorem court fee would not be payable. Similar is the situation in the present case. In Sitawanti Vs. Yashpal Singh @ Jaspal Singh, 2007 (1) PLR 86, this Court took a view on the same lines by holding that ad-valorem court fee is not required to be paid where the plaintiff has not claimed possession of the suit land as a consequential relief. Since the main relief claimed is in regard to judgment and decree, which is challenged in the suit, it can be said that challenge to the sale deed is as a consequential relief only and not the main relief. Thus, the CIVIL REVISION NO.979 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: impugned order passed by the trial Court would not call for any interference. The same is supported by the judgment noted above in this regard. No interference is called for. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 18 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE