^ .4 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CIVIL REVISIONNO. Itl OF 2009 APPLICANT ^Defendant No. 1 ^ .•.•^£^ .\/^^ f y^-'!^tt^" ^•••-••"" NON-APPLICANTS: 1 Plaintiff ^ pefendant No. 2. ^ ^ Smt. Priti Prasad, aged about 40 years, W/o Shri Arvind Kumar, Caste Kayasth, Occupation Housewife, R/o Chandela Nagar, Bitaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Punaram, aged about 58 years, S/o Sanyasi, Caste-Teli, R/o Village Bharari, Patwari Halka No. 12, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Fattechand Tiwari, aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Mitauram Tiwari, R/o Mangla, Near Shubham Bihar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Defendant No. 3. ^ 3. State ofChhattisgarh, ^t::!^^ Through: the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CQDE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE m" fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S^: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Civil Revision No. 111/2009 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Smt Priti Prasad Versiis Pimaram and others Appearance: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the applicant. Shri Aiiiit Kumar Sharma, counsel for respondent No.l/plaintiff. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lav»yer for the State/respondent No.3. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORAL ORDER (19.08.2010) This revision under section 115 of CPC has been directed against the trial courts order dated 19/06/2009 rejecting the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC for rejectioii of plaint on the ground that though the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 25/03/2008 is null and void yet adequate court fee has not been paid and that relieffor cancellation of the sale deed has also not been prayed. (2) The plaintiff, Punaram has preferred a suit for the rellefthat the sale deed dated 25/03/2008 executed by himself in favour of defendant No.l be declared void and the defendants be restrained &om interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land. ,^^g% -^^ j w ^ ^.^,/ -2- 1 . (3) The defendant No.l, on receipt of summons, entered appearance and submitted his written statement and has also filed a separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC. Contention ofthe defendant No.l in the said application is that when a psaty to the sale deed i.e. executant or vendor himself prefers a suit for declaring the sale deed as void, he is required to pay ad-valorem court fee because in effect the plaintiff seeks cancellation ofthe sale deed executed by him and thus the suit is not maintainable for want of payment of adequate court fee. The plaintilff filed his reply and contested the application by submitting that the suit has been properly valued and proper court fee has been paid. (4) Counsel for the applicanVdefendant No.l submits that the impugned order suffers from eiTor ofjurisdiction and has been passed by the trial court with material illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondentNo.l/plaintiffhas argued that no interference is called for in the impugned order. (5) In the matter of Nainsukh Kishandas and others Vs. Smt. Manish Choudhari and others, 1998 (2) M.P.L.J. 79, the High Court of M.P. has held that if a person wants to avoid tlie document to which he himself is a party, then he has to pay ad-valorem court fee, but in a case where he is not a party to the document and does not claim from the person who is a po.rty to the sale deed, by no stretch of /Tmagination it can be said that he has to pay ad"valorem court fee. •^^•wssssw •.^;i^-%-Y -^"^ iy^ i :-:-^ (6) Again, in the matter of Mohammad Jameel Khan and others Vs. Miththulal Khushal Singh Gujar, 1999 (1) M.P.L.J. 37, the High Court ofM.P. has held that a suit for declaration ofa sale deed as void filed by the executant ofthe sale deed is in substance the suit for setting aside sale deed and that in such a suit the plaintiff is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on the valuation of sale deed under section 7(iv) (c) ofthe Court Fees A^ct. (7) In view ofthe law laid down by the M.P. High Court, this court is satisfied that in the present case also the plaintiff being executor of the document and is seeking a declaration to the effect that the sale deed is void, he is required to pay ad-valorem court fee. (8) Under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC the plaint can be rejected when the plaintiff having failed to pay the court fee as per the proper valuation of the suit, and on being required by court to supply the requisite stamp paper for payment of admissible court fee, fails to do so, the plaint shall be rejected. In view ofthis provision, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the trial court is set aside. The plaintiff is granted one months time to pay ad-valorem court fee on the plaint as per value of the sale deed which he is seeking to avoid. If the plaintiff fails to pay adequate ad-valorem court fee within a period of one month, the trial court shall reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^A