1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. There is no need of issuing notice to any of the parties as this civil revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.5.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Siwan in Title Suit No. 63 of 2006 whereby the plaintiff petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee in a declaratory suit. Title Suit No. 63 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner for declaration that the sale deed dated 3.10.2005 executed by Janardan Singh in favour of defendant no. 2 is void ab initio. The seristedar reported that the ad valorem court fee of Rs. 3272/- was to be paid. This was objected by the petitioner and reliance was placed on a decision reported in the case of Mostt. Sohagwati Devi & Anr. Vs. Mostt. Lakhpatia Devi and Ors. (1975 P.L.J.R. 349) and AIR 1956 S.C. 243, A.I.R. 2004 M.P. 57 and A.I.R. 1992 Allahabad 254 in order to show that it is prerogative of the plaintiff to State the valuation of the suit. Since the nature of the suit was declaratory and only relief which was prayed by the plaintiff was for declaration that the sale deed executed by Janardan Singh is ab initio void. No relief has been prayed regarding the cancellation of the sale deed as such the report of seristedar is wrong and the plaintiff should not be directed to pay ad valorem court fee.

3. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected the impugned order relying on the decision reported in 1984 P.L.J.R. 864. The Subordinate Judge while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner has totally overlooked the relief which has been prayed for by the petitioner. The relief which was prayed in the case in the reported decision was regarding the cancellation of the sale deed in that circumstances it was held that in case of cancellation of sale deed the consequential relief is implicit. Without considering this aspect of the matter the impugned order has been passed.

4. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and this matter is remitted back to the trial court to consider it afresh in accordance with law with a direction that the petitioner will not pay the ad valorem court fee.