Judgment

Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. :-

CM No.5088-CII of 2023

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-petitioner for seeking permission to place the true translated copy of the sale-deed dated 19.10.2020 and the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2019-20, on the record as Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively.

Heard.

Keeping in view the reasons as mentioned in the present application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-5 and P-6 are taken on the record.

CR No.1101 of 2023

By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the plaintiff) has laid challenge to the order (Annexure P-4) as passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh (for short ‘the trial Court’) on 13.01.2023 in Civil Suit No.914 of 2021, whereby the application moved by the respondent-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the defendant’) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for seeking the rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-affixation of the ad-valorem court-fee thereon, has been allowed and he (plaintiff) has been directed to affix the court-fee on the plaint accordingly.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff in the present revision petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff has filed the afore-referred Civil Suit for seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale-deed dated 19.10.2020 is illegal, null and void, while averring that he was a minor at the time of the execution of the said sale- deed but prior to its execution, the requisite permission had not been obtained from the competent Court and in these circumstances, the plaintiff is not required to affix the ad-valorem court-fee on the plaint. To buttress his contention, he places reliance upon Smt. Beena and others Versus Rajinder Kumar and others , 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 449 (P&H) (SB).

4. However, the above-raised contention is devoid of any merit because the afore-discussed plea, as has been set-forth by the plaintiff in the Suit to assail the legality and validity of the sale-deed in question, can and shall be looked into and adjudicated upon by the trial Court, at the appropriate stage after appreciating and evaluating the evidence as may be led by the parties on the record in support of their respective contentions qua the same but at the moment, the facts remain that the plaintiff had executed the impugned sale-deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property and besides seeking the declaration regarding its nullity and illegality, he has also prayed for the grant of permanent injunction and has sought the consequential relief of the possession of the said property as well. It has categorically been held by the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others , 2010(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 564 that “where the executant of the sale deed wants it to be annulled, he has to pay the ad-valorem court-fee on the consideration stated in the sale-deed.” These observations are fully applicable to the present case and in view of the same, the verdict rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench earlier in Smt. Beena and others (supra), is of no help to the plaintiff.

5. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.