Court fees and limitation issues in civil proceedings were found compelling in determining the rejection of a revision petition under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharkhoda, vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants no.3 to 6 has been dismissed.

2. Respondents no.1 to 4 had filed a suit in which a prayer was made for declaration declaring the sale deed dated 01.08.2017 and the subsequent mutation and the revenue records existing in the name of defendant no.1 to the extent of 36/2378 share and also declaring sale deed dated 17.03.2022 and subsequent mutation no.13573 to be illegal having been entered on the basis of fraud and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and had further sought declaration that the plaintiffs were owners in joint possession to the extent of 36/2378 share in the abovesaid land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case the plaintiffs were required to pay ad-valorem court fee and since the same has not been done, thus, the plaint deserves to be rejected. It is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation and thus, on the said ground also, the same deserves to be rejected. It is argued that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is meritorious and the same has been illegally rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 and thus, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 would show that the trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs were not party to the sale deed and were thus non-executant of the sale deed and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Others reported as AIR 2010 SC 2807 , in a case where a person is challenging the sale deed and is not an executant of the sale deed and is not seeking possession, then he is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee. It was further observed in the impugned order that even the declaration sought by the plaintiffs was to the effect that the plaintiffs were owners in joint possession and thus, no prayer for possession was sought. A perusal of the prayer clause of the suit would show that possession of the suit property was not sought. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'(A). A Decree for Declaration declaring the registered sale deed No.1048 dated 1.8.2017, subsequent mutation No. 11176 and subsequent revenue records existing in the name of defendant No.1 to the extent of 36/2378 share (1/2 share of 36/1189 share) & sale deed No. 4325, Book No. 1 dated 17.03.2022 and subsequent mutation bearing No. 13573 being based on fraud, is wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are owners in joint possession to the extent of 36/2378 share in the above said land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, being only legal heirs of Daljeet Singh, in the interest of justice.

(B) It is further prayed that the defendants may kindly be restrained from selling, alienating, transferring the suit property i.e. 36/2378 share in the suit property as detailed in para No. 4 of the plaint to any third party, till the decision of the suit, in the interest of justice.

Cost of the suit along with any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiffs.'

The said observation of the trial Court is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

5. It would be relevant to no