JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) 

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby an application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of ad valorem Court fees, has been allowed and the petitioners-plaintiffs have been directed to pay ad valorem Court fees as per the sale consideration in the sale deed dated 28.01.2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction with the averment that the sale deed executed by the defendants with the present petitioners was by playing fraud upon the petitioners, inasmuch as, the petitioners had only taken a loan from the defendants and the defendants had obtained the signatures of the petitioners on blank papers and some stamp papers in the Tehsil complex by informing the petitioners that they would be preparing mortgage deed but instead prepared a sale deed. It is submitted that in the said situation, the petitioners were not liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee as per the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed and thus, the application moved by the respondents-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on account of non-deposit of ad valorem Court fee and the impugned order dated 04.12.2017, vide which the said application had been allowed, are against law and deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that the application filed by the respondents-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is merit-less and deserves to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners were parties to the sale deed and the trial Court, vide impugned order, after relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs.Randhir Singh and others reported as (2010) 12 SCC 112, had allowed the application filed by the respondents-defendants and had directed the present petitioners to pay the ad valorem Court fee as per the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed dated 28.01.2015. It is submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh's case (supra) had observed that in case a person is an executant of the sale deed, then, he has to seek for cancellation of the deed and in case he is not an executant of the deed and only wants to avoid it, then he can file a suit for declaration to the effect that the same is not binding on him. It was further held that in case a person is an executant of the deed, then, he would be required to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the consideration recorded in the sale deed. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'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/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' - two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non- est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In