Civil Revision No.3736 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3736 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 1, 2011 Satish Kumar .....Petitioner v. Narender Phalswal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14661-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3736 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 7.4.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rewari, Annexure P3, vide which application filed by petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against petitioner and pro forma respondents no.2 to 10 challenging various decrees, to which respondent no.1-plaintiff is not a party. He has sought declaration that the said judgments and decrees are null, void and not Civil Revision No.3736 of 2011(O&M) -2- binding on his rights. He has also sought subsequent relief of permanent injunction. He has not even sought relief for possession. Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564: 2010(2) RAJ 436: 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 510 (SC) that if a person seeks cancellation of a document, to which he is not a party and has not claimed any relief of possession, he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. The relevant paragraph of the 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 is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a 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 nonest/ 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 Civil Revision No.3736 of 2011(O&M) -3- Second Schedule of the Act. But if ‘B’, a nonexecutant, 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.” Hence, in view of the aforesaid legal proposition and in view of the peculiar facts of this case no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in rejecting the application filed by petitioner-defendant that the respondent-plaintiff is required to affix ad valorem court fee or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard Civil Revision No.3736 of 2011(O&M) -4- of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge