JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the application preferred by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been allowed, allegedly without due consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The essential factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property in question, entered into an agreement to sell dated 15.04.2024 with the respondent for the alienation of the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent failed to perform his contractual obligations, having stopped payment of three cheques issued towards earnest money amounting to Rs. 1,05,00,000/– (Rupees One Crore and Five Lac only), thereby committing a breach of the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the petitioner issued legal notices to the respondent, Gursahib Singh, intimating termination of the agreement and forfeiture of the earnest money.

2.1. Despite service, the said notices remained unreplied. Thereafter, in September 2024, the respondent instituted a civil suit dated 27.09.2024 seeking possession of the suit property along with consequential relief of injunction against the petitioner and her father, wherein it was disclosed that payment had been stopped upon learning that the property was mortgaged with a bank. It is further alleged that the respondent attempted to forcibly take possession of the suit property. In response, the petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the agreement dated 15.04.2024 was a nullity, along with a decree of permanent injunction. The learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 17.10.2024, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the relief of declaration vide order dated 03.01.2025 and thereafter instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession, asserting that the respondent has no right, title, or interest in the property.

2.2. In the said proceedings, the respondent moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was liable to affix ad valorem court fee on the agreement to sell. The said application was contested; however, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 04.11.2025, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to deposit the requisite court fee on the agreement to sell, without adverting to the relevant factual and legal aspects. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been preferred.

2.3. The revision petition has been opposed by the respondent, who had entered appearance by filing a caveat.

3. Having accorded extensive audience to the learned counsel representing the respective parties, and upon a meticulous and judicious perusal of the entire paper-book with the benefit of their erudite assistance, this Court proceeds to record its considered observations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity inasmuch as the suit, as framed, is one for declaration simpliciter, wherein the petitioner seeks recognition of his ownership and possession over the suit property, without seeking any relief for cancellation of the agreement to sell. It is thus argued that no ad valorem court fee is payable on the said agreement. It is further contended that the liability to pay court fee must be determined strictly with reference to the relief claimed in the plaint, and in the absence of any prayer for setting aside or cancellation of the agreement, the direction to affix ad v