Civil Revision No.2334 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2334 of 2008 Date of decision : 16.1.2009 Smt. Bimla and others .....Petitioners Versus Daleep Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners before this court are plaintiffs who, vide the impugned order had been directed, to pay ad-valorem court fee in the suit. The plaintiffs-petitioners are coparceners who filed a suit for a declaration to obtain invalidation of two sale deeds ( Nos. 2318 and 2319 dated 7.7.2005 ) which had been entered into by the Karta of the joint Hindi family (of which the plaintiffs-petitioners are coparceners). In that case, the defendants-respondents filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on account of payment of inadequate court fee. The averment, in the context, was that ad-valorem court fee is payable on the plaint filed in the cause. The plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court by observing that the plaintiffs-petitioners are deemed to be a party to the impugned sale Civil Revision No.2334 of 2008 -2- **** deeds and if they want to avoid it, they have to pay ad-valorem court fee. The controversy is squarely covered by two judicial pronouncements of this Court in Smt. Rekha Vs. Suresh Kumar and others 2008 (4) RCR 430 and Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar 2007(2) RCR (CIVIL)-1. In those cases, the cause had been instituted by a coparcener to challenge the validity of a sale effected by the Karta of the joint Hindu family. It was held therein that ad-valorem court fee was not required to be paid in such a case. In the light of those rulings, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents upon Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 78 (P&H) and Ranjit Singh Vs. Balkar Singh 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 45 (P&H) is misconceived. In the light of fore-going discussion,the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The trial of the suit under reference shall proceed further without the plaintiffs-petitioners' paying the ad-valorem court fee for which they are not liable to pay. January 16, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE