IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5421 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 17, 2009 Jagmail Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Harwinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the learned trial Court whereby they were directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration in respect of sale deed dated 11.3.2008 Wasika No. 9225. In their suit, the plaintiffs had sought declaration that the aforementioned sale deed was illegal, wrong, against law and facts, null and void, void ab initio, non est in the eyes of law and just a paper transaction being carried out without competence, without authority, in-effective and inoperative qua their rights and, therefore, liable to be set aside. They also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain defendants No. 1 to 3 from alienating, mortgaging or transferring the suit property in any manner. Civil Revision No.5421 of 2008 - 2 - After relying upon the judgment of this Court in Teja Singh v. Amar Kaur and others, 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 531, whereby it was held that if cancellation of document was sought without claiming possession as consequential or substantive relief, the ad valorem Court fee was not required but, as in the present case, the plaintiffs were not in possession over the suit property, therefore, they were required to affix the ad valorem Court fee. Admittedly, the sale deed dated 11.3.2008 was executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. The plaintiffs were not party to the said sale deed. Moreover, they were also not in possession over the suit property. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs could not be asked to affix the ad valorem Court fee. Their case would not fall within the ambit of Section 7(iv)(b) and (c) of the Court Fees Act, which require the payment of ad valorem Court fee. Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to continue with the suit filed by the plaintiffs without requiring them to affix the ad valorem Court fee. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 17, 2009 JUDGE satish