C.R. No.7401 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7401 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2010. Dharambir and another .....Petitioners Versus Managing Director, Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.P. R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.29023-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Plaintiffs have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 20.04.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari thereby directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration of the sale deed Annexure P-1 which is under challenge in the suit. Plaintiffs filed suit vide plaint Annexure P-2. The plaintiffs alleged that their father sold the suit land to respondent-defendant No.1 for Rs.2,31,00,000/- vide sale deed Annexure P-1 and the vendee gave one post dated cheque for Rs.1,73,25,000/- out of the sale consideration. The said cheque was dishonoured. Plaintiffs' father accordingly filed suit and also launched criminal proceedings C.R. No.7401 of 2010 (O & M) -2- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of that suit, plaintiffs' father expired on 03.01.2007. In December, 2007, defendants through their representative approached the petitioners for settlement of the case and for that, they again gave four post dated cheques, in addition to a bank draft for Rs.48,88,650/- towards interest for the previous period. Thereupon the plaintiffs, who were impleaded as legal representatives of their father in the previous suit, withdrew the said suit on 24.12.2007. However, again the post dated cheques issued by defendant No.1 were dishonoured. Plaintiffs have filed criminal proceedings regarding the same. On these averments, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the said sale deed Annexure P-1 dated 12.04.2006 is null and void. Other necessary ancillary reliefs have also been claimed. Defendants moved application Annexure P-3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deed, failing which the plaint be rejected. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 held the plaintiffs liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in the sale deed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that plaintiffs are not executants of the impugned sale C.R. No.7401 of 2010 (O & M) -3- deed Annexure P-1 and, therefore, plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed, in view of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in C.R. No.22 of 2009 titled as 'Dara Singh versus Gurbachan Singh and others', following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh and others, 2010 (2) PLR 707 (SC). I am surprised that the aforesaid contention, which is completely misconceived and devoid of merit, has been advanced at the bar. The plaintiffs have challenged the impugned sale deed as legal heirs of their father, who had executed the said sale deed. Consequently, the plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of their father, who was the executant of the sale deed. In other words, the plaintiffs have stepped in as executants of the sale deed and are challenging the same as such. Consequently, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) and by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dara Singh (supra) as relied on by counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in the sale deed. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. The said order is fully justified. The instant revision petition is completely misconceived and devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 15.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE