The suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed fell within the ambit of Section 7 (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, and the Trial Court's decision to direct the appellant to pay necessary Court fee under Section 7 (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act was upheld.

RAJIV SHARMA and Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, JJ.--Heard Mr. A.P. Singh, Gaur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. It has been stated by the Counsel for the appellant that the land comprised in Khasra Plot No. 648-Kha, measuring 4.0469 hectares is situated in Village Kankaha, Pargana Nigohan, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. The appellant executed a sale-deed in the name of respondent No. 1 on 15.12.2005, which is recorded in the name of the appellant as bhumidhar with transferable rights, Counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant came to know that an application dated 1.12.2006 has been moved in the name of Royal Shiksha Sans than (respondent) before the All India Council for Technical Education for grant of approval of establishing an institution ih the name and style of Lucknow College of Technology and Management (Hotel Management Wing) over the suit property.

3. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Society (respondent No.1) fraudulently and deceitfully applied for and obtained recognition on the basis of false information and forged documents including the fact that instead of showing the building, which could belong or constructed over the property in suit, the building and the property situated on the adjoining land of the appellant was claimed to have been owned by the society. In these circumstances, the appellant lodged a complaint with the respondent No.

2 vide letter dated 25.4.2009 for de-recognition of the society and cancellation of affiliation of the institute. When no action was taken on the complaint of the appellant, a Writ Petition No. 4746 (M.B.) of 2006, Shivgarh Resort Limited v. Union of India and others, was filed before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent No.2 to decide the complaint of the appellant by 3rd week of July.

4. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that when the appellant show that extensive construction works are under way on the property in question, he also filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction before the Trial Court on 27.5.2009 which was registered as Regular Suit (No. 158 of 2009) with the title Rakesh Pratap Singh v. Royal Shiksha Sansthan and another, alongwith application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 for interim injunction and another application under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner which were numbered as C-6 and C-10 respectively.

5. In the said suit, the Munsarim has reported the deficiency of Court fee and required the appellant to make good the deficiency as the valuation of the property in question has been declared as Rs. 61,75,000. The Munsarim was of the opinion that the requisite fee has not been paid. Objections to the said report of Munsarim was filed by the appellant-plaintiff which was numbered as C-16. The objections alongwith an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 as well as the application under Order XXXIV, Rule 7 were taken up for disposal on 9.7.2009. By means of the orders passed separately, the application (C-6) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 were rejected inter alia on the ground that the requisite Court fee has not been paid. As regard the appointment of Ac.vocate Commissioner, the application (C-10) was allowed, but the objections (C-16) to the report of Munsarim were rejected by the order dated 9.7.2009 which is impugned in the instant appeal. By this order, the Trial Court has directed the appellant-plaintiff to pay the Court fee as provided under section 7 (iv-A) by 17.7.2009.

6. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents-defendants that the appropriate Court fee as required was not paid, so under section 6-A (2) of the Court Fees Act all the interim orders have been discharges. Mr. A.P.S. Gaur, learned