IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4322 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 12, 2009 Mohinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Sarwan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. M.S.Joshi, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) While filing the suit, Sarwan Singh-plaintiff-respondent challenged the sale deeds dated 1.2.2000, 3.2.2000 and 8.2.2000, said to have been executed by him in favour of defendant No.1. He also challenged the sale deed, which was said to have been executed, thereafter, by defendants No.1 and 2 alongwith others in favour of defendants No.3 to 6/petitioners. As the basic sale deeds were said to have been executed by the plaintiff, he was rightly directed by the learned trial Court to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amounts mentioned in the said sale deeds. However, the plaintiff could not be required to pay ad valorem Court fee upon the subsequent sale deed, said to have been executed by defendants No.1 and 2 alongwith others in favour of defendants No.3 to 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Ranjit Singh and others V Balkar Singh and another 2000(2) Civil Court cases 504, C.R. No. 4322 of 2009 -2- Satwinder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur V Surjeet Singh and others, 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 55(P&H), Ajmer Singh V Punjab Singh (Minor) and another, 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 717(P&H), Om Parkash V Inderawati and others, 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 263(P&H) and Bhagrawat V Mehar Chand , 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 12(P&H), to contend that whenever the sale deed is challenged on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff would be required to pay ad valorem Court fee and as the plaintiff has not been directed by the learned trial Court to pay ad valorem Court fee in respect of the sale deed, said to have been executed by defendants No.1 and 2 alongwith others in favour of defendants No.3 to 6, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. I have perused the aforementioned judgments. In all those cases, the plaintiffs therein were directed to pay ad valorem Court fee in respect of the sale deed(s) said to have been executed by the plaintiff(s) in favour of the defendant(s). To that extent learned trial Court, in the present case, has already directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee in respect of three sale deeds said to have been executed by him in favour of defendant No.1. However, it has not been held in any of the aforementioned judgments that the plaintiff would also be required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the subsequent sale deed executed by some of the defendants in favour of others. Resultantly, there is no merit in the revision, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 12, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1