C.R No.6646 of 2008 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.6646 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 Gaje Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Sulekh Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,3,4,5 & 6. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 7.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Safidon vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants-respondents has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to affix the ad valorem court fee. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of land measuring 360 sq. yards as described in the head note of the plaint challenging the sale deed No.1843 dated 5.12.2007 executed by C.R No.6646 of 2008 #2# respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of the respondent-defendants. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants-respondents for rejection of plaint. Upon notice, the same was opposed. After hearing both the parties, the application has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to affix the ad valorem court fee, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that learned court below has gravely erred while passing the impugned order as the property in dispute is ancestral and the main relief is for declaration of the sale deed dated 5.12.2007 and the petitioners were neither the executant of the sale deed nor the possession is prayed for. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has defended the order with full vehemence and prayed for dismissal of the petition. At the time of issuing of notice of motion, this Court noticed that the issue involved in the present case is already referred to Larger Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.4753 of 2005 and the present petition was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Larger Bench. The issue by the Larger Bench of this Court has been decided vide order dated 15.7.2011 while holding as under: “i) If the executant of a document wants a deed to be annulled, he is to seek cancellation of the deed and to pay advalorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the said sale deed. ii) But if a non-executant seeks annulment of deed i.e. C.R No.6646 of 2008 #3# when he is not party to the document, he is to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, non-est, illegal or that it is not binding upon him. In that eventuality, he is to pay the fixed Court fee as per Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. iii) But if the non-executant is not in possession and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also a consequential relief of possession, he is to pay the advalorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act and such valuation in case of immovable property shall not be less than the value of the property as calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. In view of the conclusion at point Nos.(ii) & (iii) arrived at by the Larger Bench of this Court, the plaintiffs-petitioners are liable to pay the affixed court fee as per Article 17 (iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act and not to pay the ad valorem court fee. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into account the decision dated 15.7.2011 of the Larger Bench of this Court in C.R.No.4753 of 2005, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Safidon is set aside. October 20, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE