Civil Revision No.1780 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1780 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 25, 2008 Baisakha Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Gurmeet Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. On an application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem court fees. He has accordingly impugned the said order through the present revision petition. It is alleged that the petitioner has challenged the sale deed No.535 dated 14.8.2006, but has failed to pay the requisite Civil Revision No.1780 of 2008 : 2 : court fees. In the reply filed, the petitioner has taken a stand that challenge to the sale deed is a consequential relief, whereas substantive relief claimed is regarding declaration to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as co-sharers. This is a case where the sale deed has been executed on the basis of a general power of attorney dated 9.8.2006, executed by Mukhtiar Singh in favour of Karnail Singh. Even Mukhtiar Singh was present in the office of Sub Registrar, Barnala as can be seen from the photographs, which fact is noticed by the trial court. The general power of attorney executed by him is on record. The challenge in the suit is to the general power of attorney and the sale deed, cancellation of which is being sought, these being illegal, null and void. The petitioner has based his entire claim on the basis of a Will left by Mukhtiar Singh, who died on 28.8.2006. The power of attorney, on the basis of which the sale deed was executed, is dated 9.8.2006. Sale deed was executed on 14.8.2006. It is, thus, clear that in order to succeed, the petitioner has to seek cancellation of not only the attorney but the sale deed. The Will, even if executed by Mukhtiar Singh, would become operational after the death of said Mukhtiar Singh, which is on 28.8.2006. Prior to this date, the sale had already been effected on 14.8.2006. Even Mukhtiar Singh was found present before the Sub Registrar. So, basically it will turn out to be a case of cancellation of sale deed. If the property has been sold by Mukhtiar Singh prior to his death, his Will even if written earlier Civil Revision No.1780 of 2008 : 3 : would become ineffective as no property would remain to be devolved on the basis of this Will. These facts are peculiar to this case, which would indicate this case to be such where essentially challenge to the sale deed would turn out to be a main relief, rather than the consequential one. The fact that petitioner is not a party to this sale deed would not make any substantial difference in the present case. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar & Ors. , 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 1 to challenge the impugned order on the ground that he was not party to the sale deed would not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the view expressed in Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shri Dadu Dayal Trust and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 173 would not also apply to the facts of the present case. Here, a difference between substantial and consequential relief has been noted to say that where cancellation of a sale deed is not a substantial relief claimed, the ad valorem court fees would not be payable. That is not the position in the present case. In the present case, the substantial relief claimed is for cancellation of a sale deed. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. The revision is, as such, dismissed. March 25, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE