C.R.No.2481 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2481 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.12.2011 Sant Lal ..Petitioner Versus Devi Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav,Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner being asked to pay ad-valorem court fee in respect of suit for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has approached this Court impugning the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the trial court on an application filed by the defendant- respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”). 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of 1 C.R.No.2481 of 2011 the Code for rejection of the plaint due to non-payment of ad-valorem court fee. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing reply. The trial Court allowed the said application vide order impugned herein. Hence this revision petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 had laid down the following principles relating to payment of court fees on cancellation of a deed:- i) Where the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the deed; ii) Where the non-executant, who is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share shall be required to affix fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act; iii) Where the non-executant who is not in possession seeks declaration that the deed is invalid and also claim relief of possession, is required to affix ad-valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) ( c) of the Act. Under the Proviso attached thereto, such valuation in case of property shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction alleging that the decree dated 8.11.1991 is null and void. In view of the principles enunciated in the above mentioned judgment, the petitioner is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee. 2 C.R.No.2481 of 2011 6. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order passed by the trial court warranting interference by this Court. 7. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 12, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3