CR No. 1743 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1743 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.8.2010 Kali Kishan Sharma ..Petitioner Vs. Sunil Dutt Sharma & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this court to challenge the order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the learned trial court on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee as he has sought declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction by way of challenging the sale deed executed by CR No. 1743 of 2010 2 defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 5. The case of the petitioner is, that the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained as the basic relief sought by the petitioner is not to challenge the sale deed but suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the land in dispute. The petitioner is not a party to the sale deed and nor he has sought relief of possession, therefore in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors.,2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 564, no ad valorem court fee was payable. In view of what has been stated above, revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the defendant/respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code stands dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 3.08.2010 Judge rp