Civil Revision No.3500 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3500 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 28, 2011 Ran Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Jai Narain .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 21.4.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rohtak, vide which application filed by present petitioners-defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed no.461 dated 12.4.2007 executed and registered in favour of defendant no.2 by defendant no.1 is null, void and nonest in the eyes of law with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plea has been taken that plaintiff is co-owner and in possession of the land in dispute and the same has not been partitioned so far and hence, sale-deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is without any right. For the purpose of Civil Revision No.3500 of 2010(O&M) -2- Court fee, the plaintiff affixed Rs.25/- on the plaint. 4. Petitioner-defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that respondent-plaintiff has challenged the sale-deed without affixing the ad valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(iv)(c ) of the Act. Learned trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants on the ground that plaintiff was not a party to the sale-deed and that he has only sought for relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction without claiming relief of possession and as the respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the said sale-deed hence, he is not entitled to affix court fee on the amount of consideration of the sale-deed under challenge. 5. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the sale-deed and however, he has challenged the sale-deed, hence, he is required to pay ad valorem court fee. On the point, he has placed reliance upon two judgments of different coordinate Benches of this Court rendered in Ranjit Singh and others v. Balkar Singh and another, 2000(2) Civil Court Cases 504 (P&H) and Om Parkash v. Inderawati and others, 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 263 (P&H). 6. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners as law has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564: 2010(2) RAJ 436 in which it has been specifically held that in case where plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the sale-deed is null and void being not a party to the sale deed and is also not seeking possession, the plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee but where the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale- deed alongwith consequential relief of possession, he is required to pay ad- valorem court fee. The relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment reads as under:- “6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed in invalid, or nonest, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a Civil Revision No.3500 of 2010(O&M) -3- prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' – two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad- valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c ) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c ) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.” 7. The same view has been taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh and others v. Narinder Singh, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 139: 2010(4) CivCC 83. 8. Hence, in view of recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh's case (supra), it cannot be said Civil Revision No.3500 of 2010(O&M) -4- that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 10. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.