CR No. 2602 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2602 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.8.2009 Parveen Kumar & another .......... Petitioners Versus Salinder Kumar & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Karnal allowing an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs had sought declaration, that the sale deed dated 5.12.2005 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 to be illegal, null and void and not binding on the legal rights of the plaintiff / petitioners. The petitioner / plaintiffs had filed a suit to challenge the sale made by the Karta of the family being coparcener by claiming the suit property to be ancestral in the hands of respondent No.2. The learned trial Court allowed the application and directed the CR No. 2602 of 2006 2 petitioners to affix ad valorem court fee on the plea that as the sale deed was challenged and, therefore, the petitioners were to pay ad valorem court fee, on the value of sale deed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were to affix the court fee as per the provisions envisaged under Section 7(iv)(b) & (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and not ad valorem court fee, as the petitioners were not party to the sale deed. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur 1981 PLJ 423. It may be noticed that once the petitioners were challenging the sale deed as coparcener and were not party to the sale the learned trial Court committed an error, in ordering the payment of ad valorem court fee, in view of law laid down by this Court in Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur ( supra ). This revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the application moved by the defendant / respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. 11.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE