Civil Revision No. 1439 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1439 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.4.2010 Smt. Kela Devi ...Petitioners Versus M/s Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. The respondents herein filed a suit for a declaration “to the effect that the sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff may be treated and declared as cancelled, ineffective and cheques No. 339294, 378531 and 378532 may also be declared effective, inoperative, unsustainable in the eyes of law and the plaintiff is not under no obligation to make any payment to the defendant”. Also sought was a decree for a “mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to refund the advance amount, part payment and the payment of cheques received amount, stamp and registration charges incurred by the plaintiff while executing the sale deed may be refunded”. Apart therefrom, the respondent/plaintiff had also sought the restraint of defendant-petitioner “from using these cheques or realizing the amount or from instituting any complaint on the basis of dishonoured cheques as mentioned above in any court Civil Revision No. 1439 of 2009 -2- **** be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.” The defendant-petitioner filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the plea that plaintiff- respondent had not affixed proper Court fee on the basis of sale consideration indicated in the impugned sale deed. The plea raised by the respondent-plaintiff was that all that he had sought was a mere declaration of the invalidity of the impugned sale deed in view of the fact that the sale deed otherwise stood cancelled in view of the clause contained in the sale deed itself. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 9.1.2009, upheld the plea raised by the respondent by observing that sale deed stood in terms of the contractual clause aforementioned. (“The copy of sale deed produced by the plaintiff shows that it was agreed between the parties that if the cheques are dishonoured, the sale would stand cancelled. According to the plaintiff the sale deed stood cancelled on the dishonour of the cheque and he has sought a decree of declaration only to the effect that the sale deed stood cancelled on dishonour of the cheque. Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiff is not required to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant- respondent, relied upon Sri Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1299 to challenge the very maintainability of revision petition. Civil Revision No. 1439 of 2009 -3- **** The plea raised is misconceived. It is apparent from a perusal of the above ruling that, in that case, question of Court fee leviable on a plaint had been decided on the facts involved therein. There is no parallel of circumstances in that case and the in the present case. There can no escape from the conclusion that even if the documentation indicated that the impugned sale deed would stand vitiated on the happening of an indicated eventuality, a party applying for the grant of a declaration to that effect shall have to pay Court fee as per the sale consideration. If the parties opt to rest content with the clause mentioned in the documentation itself, there would obviously be no controversy in the matter of levying of Court fee. However, if a party opts to apply for a declaration, it shall have to pay the Court fee on the basis of sale consideration thereof. In the face of that factual predicament, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has an apprehension that the learned Trial Court would order the payment of Court fee on the higher side. The law on the point is very clear. It will be for the learned Trial Court to assess the leviable Court fee in the light of provisions of the Court Fee Act and the law on the point. Any party having any grievance with the fixture of leviabale court fee would, obviously, have entitlement to have recourse to whatever remedy is available to him under the law. Disposed of accordingly. April 20, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge