The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period and the determination of court fees for suits seeking declaration without seeking possession or consequential relief of possession.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the defendant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, whereby the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed.

Further challenge has been made to the order dated 14.08.2019 (P-2), whereby review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Mr. S.S. Nain, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the sale deed dated 20.09.2013 is in question and suit for declaration has been instituted on 09.02.2017, which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the required ad-Valorem Court fee has also not been paid, because the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 20.09.2013 is Rs.14,00,000/- and suit had been filed with deficient amount of Court fee, thus, on both accounts, suit is worth for its dismissal.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. before the learned Civil Court is misconceived and has been rightly dismissed by learned trial Court on the issue of limitation. Learned counsel while producing the copy of the suit refers to paragraph No.17 of the plaint, wherein, it has been explained that plaintiff came to know of the said sale deed in the police Station at Pinjore on 24.11.2015 only. For the sake of convenience, paragraph No.17 of the plaint is reproduced hereunder:

17. That the cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant firstly on several occasion and again on when the defendant filed a false and frivolous complaint against the plaintiff with the police of P.S.Pinjore and on 24.11.2015, when the plaintiff came to know about the execution and registration of the alleged sale deed on the basis of alleged GPA by misrepresenting the facts and again when the request of the plaintiff was declined by the defendant to get the said sale deed cancelled and thereafter on several occasions and lastly on 08.02.2017, when the defendant threatened to alienate the property in question to some third person and also create charge over the same forcibly and illegally just to make the matter complicated. The cause of action is still continuing one.'

Thus, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that in the present case, issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and a categoric pleading in this regard has already been taken in the plaint, therefore, on account of limitation, application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot be allowed at this stage.

4. While responding to the second argument i.e. of making payment of deficient Court fee, Mr. Parminder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment relied upon by learned trial Court is the correct proposition of law.

This Court has also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others 2010 AIR (Supreme Court) 2807 and relevant paragraph No. 6 of the said judgment clarifies the situation that in case, plaintiff is not the party to the sale deed and he is not seeking cancellation but declaration without seeking possession or even without seeking consequential relief of possession, he has to pay ad-Valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7 (IV) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. For sake of convenience paragraph No.6 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

'6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveya