Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.:- The present petition has been filed by the plaintiffs impugning the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Assandh, whereby in an application filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC direction was given for affixing ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the property in dispute.

2. Briefly the facts as are evident from the material on record are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction challenging the sale deed bearing no. 475/1 dated 24.5.2004 and sale deed Vasika No. 339/1 (340) dated 9.5.2006 allegedly executed and registered by respondent no. 1/ defendant no. 1 with respect to the suit property for a fictitious sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.1,27,000/-, respectively. After notice, the defendants appeared. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissing the suit on account of deficient court fee. Rs.50/- was fixed as Court fee by valuing the suit at Rs.400/-. On that application, the learned court below directed the petitioners to pay advalorem court fee on the market value of the suit property which they themselves claimed to be more than Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. Assailing the order passed by the learned court below, the learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon judgment of this Court in Ami Chand vs Raj Pal and others, [2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2092] : 2011 (2) PLR 23 submitted that in case the relief claimed is for cancellation of sale-deed by a party to the sale-deed, the case would not be covered under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870. The same would be covered under Article 1 Schedule I of the Act, under which ad-valorem Court fee is required to be affixed as per consideration mentioned in the sale deed. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment, direction by the learned Court below for payment of Court fee on the basis of market value of the property in dispute deserves to be set aside as the petitioners were party to the sale-deed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim while referring to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 : 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1356 (SC)] : AIR 2010 SC 2807. He submitted that the directions of the learned court below are strictly in accordance with law, hence, do not deserve to be set aside as the same are in consonance with the relief claimed by the petitioners in the suit and the valuation of the property claimed by them.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. As is evident from the material on record, the petitioners filed a suit challenging two sale deeds dated 24.5.2004 and 9.5.2006 allegedly executed and registered by respondent no. 1 with respect to the suit property for fictitious sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.1,27,000/- respectively in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 (being their power of attorney). For the purpose of Court fee, the suit was valued at Rs.400/- and Court fee of Rs.50/- was paid. The application was filed by defendant nos. 2 and 3- vendees under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of deficiency in Court fee.

7. The issue, which is required to be considered in the present petition is as to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of payment of court fee by the petitioners, who are admittedly parties to the sale deed, challenged in the suit. Same was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh’s case (supra), wherein it was opined that if an executant of the sale-deed seeks cancellation thereof, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. Para 6 thereof is extracted below:-

“6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executan