C.R.No.2797 of 2008 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2797 of 2008 Date of Decision: 02.09.2011 Jagjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Yogesh Kataria and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh K Kataria, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.4.2008 (P.7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon whereby he has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that although on the alleged payment of sale consideration of Rs.10 lac by cheques, the defendants-respondents were recited to be owners in possession of the suit property, however, due to dishonouring of the cheques, the sale deed would be construed to be void ab initio on account of non-payment of due sale consideration. Thus, it is contended that in the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession, no ad valorem court fee is liable to be paid. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents C.R.No.2797 of 2008 #2# submits that the plaintiff-petitioner is seeking a declaration of a sale deed to be null and void duly executed by him and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly directed the payment of ad valorem court fee. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am not persuaded to accept the plea of the plaintiff-petitioner. In my view, at this stage it is irrelevant to consider that whether due sale consideration had passed or not since that would be decided at the stage of the trial. The fact remains that the petitioner is seeking canellation of the sale deed executed by him and thus in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, Vol.CLVIII (2010-2) 707, in my view, the trial Court has rightly directed the payment of ad valorem court fee. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed, however, plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to deposit the required ad valorem court fee on or before 12.10.2011. September 02, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE