C.R. No. 3948 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3948 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.7.2009 Daya Kaur .......... Petitioner Versus Kulwinder Kaur & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.S. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mohali, vide which application moved by the respondents / defendant for rejection of plaint for want of Court fee, stands allowed. The petitioner / plaintiff has been given time upto 20.8.2009 to make good the court fee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that the petitioner was not a party to the sale deed, the ad valorem Court fee, therefore, was not required, as the right acquired by the petitioner was through her mother i.e. her predecessor in interest. The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the sale deed, but drafted the suit to be a suit for declaration of her right and protection of possession. However, the pleadings in the plaint shows that the petitioner is claiming C.R. No. 3948 of 2009 2 right in the property by inheritance from her mother and she further challenged the sale deed executed by her mother, on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaint was cleverly drafted claiming basic relief, to challenge the sale deeds being illegal, null and void by taking it to be a suit for declaration and possession. It is well settled law that a party by clever drafting can not avoid payment of court fee. The learned trial Court was right in holding that the ad valorem court fee was payable. No merit. Dismissed. 17.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE