C.R.No.1093 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1093 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.3.2011 Balbir Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Kamaljit Kaur and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant No.1-petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (P.1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit (P.2) for declaration to the effect that the land described in the head note of the plaint is joint hindu co-parcenery property in which they are owner in possession of their respective shares and the alleged will dated 11.2.1987 executed by Ujjagar Singh S/o Arjan Singh in favour of defendant No.1-petitioner is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and consequently mutation No.1326 entered on the basis of the alleged will is also nonest in the eyes of law with a further prayer for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant C.R.No.1093 of 2011 #2# No.1-petitioner in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3-respondent Nos.4 & 5 are illegal and inoperative with a further relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Upon notice, defendant No.1-petitioner instead of filing written statement moved an application dated 17.1.2008 (P.4) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of requisite court fee. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiffs- respondent Nos.1 to 3, who filed their reply dated 31.7.2009 (P.5) and opposed the application being not maintainable. It is necessary to mention here that defendant No.2 also filed a similar application for rejection of plaint and after hearing both the sides, learned trial Court has dismissed both the applications by way of common impugned order, hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order while dismissing the application is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the relief claimed by the plaintiff- respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the civil suit is not only for declaration but for possession also, hence the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint in toto. This Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 had challenged the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1-petitioner in favour of the remaining defendants-respondents No.2 & 3 and undisputedly the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not the party to the alleged sale deed vide which the joint family property has been sold out by other co-owner C.R.No.1093 of 2011 #3# without the consent of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and no substantial relief of possession is claimed. This Court in a similar case reported as Harmail Singh v. Gurmail Singh and others, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 323 has held that where the defendants are selling joint family property and executed a sale deed and where plaintiff/co-owner was not a party to the sale deed filing suit seeking declaration regarding the cancellation of sale deed and no substantial relief of possession claimed is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee and this judgment has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 21.10.2010. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (P.1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. March 10, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE