IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5789 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.8.2010 Maya Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Prem Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2009 vide which their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The petitioners had made a prayer that respondent No.1 be directed to affix the ad valorem court fee on the suit filed by him challenging the execution of a sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. It was contended that the property was co-parcenary and by way of succession it ought to have devolved upon the legal heirs of Bishan Dass and consequently the sale deeds executed by respondents No.2 and 3 are not binding upon him. The learned trial court rejected the application and observed that respondent No.1 was not required to affix the ad C.R.No.5789 of 2009 (O&M) -2- valorem court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the sale deeds have been challenged, respondent No.1 was required to affix the ad valorem court fee. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance on Kulwinder Kaur & Ors. v. Sukhwant Singh & Ors. 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 373 (P&H) to contend that if a person is not a party to the s ale deed, he is not required to affix ad valorem court fee for the purpose of challenging the sale deed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 appears to be justified. Respondent No.1 is a third party to the sale and he is not a party to the execution of the sale deed nor a beneficiary. The observations of this Court as made in Kulwinder Kaur's case (supra) are straightway attracted to the facts of this case. This Court therefore does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 16.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss