The substance of the relief sought determines the court fee requirement, and the plaintiff cannot evade payment of necessary court fee by astute drafting.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.04.2017, whereby the plaintiff-petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee.

2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession as also for declaration to the effect that the agreement to sell dated 27.03.2012 executed by the plaintiffpetitioner in favour of the defendant-respondent No.1 had become infructuous and had also become un-executable and that the earnest money paid by the defendant-respondents to the plaintiff-petitioner stood forfeited. In the suit, a further prayer of consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from giving possession of the suit property to any third persons was also sought.

3. The case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner, in the plaint, was that the plaintiff-petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with defendant-respondent No.1 on 27.03.2012. As per terms of the agreement, the total sale consideration was Rs. 99 Lacs per eight kanals with measurement of 5 feet Karam and out of which, the plaintiff-petitioner admitted having received Rs. 55 Lacs as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 02.01.2013, after payment of the remaining amount. The plaintiff-petitioner claimed that though sale deeds were executed qua portion of the land, possession of the entire property was delivered to the defendant-respondents. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for possession regarding land measuring 10 kanals 1.1 marlas out of the property measuring 29 kanals 2.2 marlas; Part (a) land measuring 26 kanals 17 marlas; Part (b) 1 kanal 6 marlas out of land measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas; and Part (c) 18.12 marlas out of land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas, situated at Village Majitha, Tehsil and District Amritsar, as per jamabandi for the year 2011-12, as also for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 27.03.2012 executed by the plaintiff-petitioner had become infructuous and un-executable and that the earnest money paid by the defendant-respondents to the plaintiff-petitioner stood forfeited.

4. The defendant-respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of the plaint, on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner had not paid ad valorem court fee and hence, the plaint ought to be rejected.

5. Reply was filed to the said application and vide order dated 05.04.2017, the said application was allowed.

6. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has contended that since he was not asking for cancellation of the agreement to sell, no ad valorem court fee has to be paid and he would be required to pay court fee as per Section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 i.e. ten times of the revenue payable on the land. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, court fee paid is already in excess of what it was required to be paid. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments:-

1. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V/s Randhir Singh and others, (2010) AIR SC 2807 ;

2. Hardam Singh V/s Angrej Singh and others, (2014) 1 RCR(Civil) 929 ;

3. Gurshinder Singh V/s Pal Singh and others, (2014) 1 RCR(Civil) 651 ;

4. Amarpal Kaur V/s Harbant Rai, (2015) 8 RCR(Civil) 740 ;

5. Smt. Mukhtiar Inder Kaur V/s S. Avtar Singh, (1989) 1 RRR 573 .

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the plaintiff-petitioner is actually claiming cancellation of the agreement to sell and by merely stating in the plaint that the agreement to sell had become infructuous, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot get away from paying the ad valorem court fee.

10. It