Civil Revision No. 54 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 54 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Seema Rani ......petitioner Versus Shashi Bhushan .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff- petitioner had filed a suit challenging sale deed dated 22.6.2004 on the allegation that the same is forged and fabricated and was based on fraud and misrepresentation. During the pendency of the suit, defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). The said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff-petitioner. Civil Revision No. 54 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issues were framed by the trial Court on 23.1.2010 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. A specific issue has been framed qua court fee and in these circumstances, at this stage, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not maintainable. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Mahant Lal vs. Ainshi Lal and others 2007 (40 CCC 0047 and Teja Singh vs. Smt.Amar kaur 2008 (1) CCC 0531. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the sale deed on the ground that it is based on fraud and is a forged and fabricated document. In these circumstances, the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee. It has been held by this Court in Ajmer Singh vs. Punjab Singh (Minor) and another 2007 (3) CCC 717 (P&H) as under:- “It is not in dispute that while seeking the relief of injunction, the petitioner has also challenged sale deed to be outcome of fraud, therefore, not binding on him. Consequently, the learned trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the ad valorem court fee as the sale deed was challenged. There is no illegality in this order which may call for Civil Revision No. 54 of 2011 (O&M) 3 interference by this Court.” The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. Petition stands dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 05, 2011 anita