C.R. No.4700 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4700 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.08.2010 Gurdial Singh .……Petitioner Versus Smt. Anguri Devi ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Gurdial Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 03.06.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal thereby directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed which has been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit filed by him against the respondent-defendant. The plaintiff's allegation is that he agreed to sell suit land measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas to the defendant at the rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre for total consideration of Rs.66,00,000/- and received Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of agreement dated 28.04.2007 and Rs.6,50,000/- on 01.11.2007, but the defendant by fraud and misrepresentation got sale deed dated 24.12.2007 executed for sale consideration of Rs.32,70,000/- without paying any further amount, although the total consideration agreed was Rs.66,00,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff vide plaint Annexure P-1 sought declaration that the sale deed dated 24.12.2007 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. He also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property and from raising any loan on it and from C.R. No.4700 of 2010 -2- changing its nature. Defendant moved application Annexure P-2 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for requiring the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, failing which the plaint be rejected. Plaintiff filed reply Annexure P-3 to the said application. Learned Trial Court vide order Annexure P-4 allowed the defendant's application and directed to the defendant to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration is not payable as the suit is for declaration. The contention cannot be accepted because the sale deed under challenge has been executed by the plaintiff himself and, therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deed. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 13.08.2010 A. Kaundal