Hon’ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.—Heard Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present civil revision is filed challenging the order dated 11.04.2013 in Regular Suit No. 1142 of 2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 20. By the said order, the learned Additional Civil Judge has required the revisionists-plaintiffs to deposit the Court fees as per ad-valorem valuation of the property involved in the sale-deed, as per Section 7(iv-A) (1) (The section is wrongly referred to as Section 7(vi-A) (1) in the impugned order).

3. Facts of the present case are that revisionists-plaintiffs filed a suit bearing R.S. No. 1142 of 2012 for cancellation of sale-deed and for permanent injunctions praying for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 03.05.2010.

4. The relevant reliefs sought in the plaint are as follows :

“(i) A decree for cancellation of sale-deed only to the extent of the share of plaintiffs dated 03.05.2010 (Third May Thousand Ten) executed by the defendant No. 1(One) in favour of defendant No. 2(Two) & 3(Three) which was registered in the office of sub-registrar-III Lucknow on 25.09.2010 (Twenty Fifth September Two Thousand Ten) at Bhai No. 1 (One) Jild No. 7999 (Seven Nine Nine Nine) pages 365-404 (Three Six Five-Four Zero Four) at serial No. 7644 (Seven Six Four Four) dated 03.05.2010 dated 03.05.2010 be passed in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants and same be sent to the office of sub Registrar Lucknow to incorporate the same.

(ii) A Decree of Permanent Injunction be passed in favour of plaintiff against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the property in suit which is morefully describe in para 1(One) to 4(Four) of the plaint.”

5. The relevant plaint allegations for the purposes of this revision are :

“10. That the plaintiffs immediately applied for the certified copy of the sale-deed and after verifying the sale-deed it reveals that defendant No. 1 (One) executed the aforesaid sale-deed for self and as power of attorney holder of plaintiffs in favour of the defendant nos 2 (Two) & 3(Three) who are non (sic) else but mother-in-law (Saas) and brother-in-law (Sala).

11. That it is relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs never authorized the defendant No. 1 (One) to sell their property to any person. It is further relevant to mention here that allege power of attorney dated 09.04.2007 (Ninth April Two Thousand Seven) on basis of which the sale-deed has been executed is a farzi and fictitious document which was not executed by the plaintiffs. The alleged power of attorney is also not a registered document and as per settled principle of law no transfer of immovable property can be made without registered power of attorney.

12. That the defendant No. 1 (one) has never informed his intention to sell the properties of the plaintiffs to defendant Nos. 2 (two) & 3(three), the plaintiffs also never authorized the defendant No. 1(one) to sell their property.

13. That it is also relevant to mention here that the power of attorney on the basis of which defendant No. 2[two] purchased the property for the defendant No. 3[three] also does not confer any right to purchase any property in her name therefore, the sale-deed dated 03.05.2010[third May two thousand Ten] is also void because of non specific power to purchase the property on her behalf has been given to the defendant No. 2[two] to the defendant No. 3[three].”

6. The stand of the revisionists-plaintiffs in the aforesaid pleadings is that the sale-deed was not executed by them. The person who executed the sale-deed on the basis of power of attorney has played fraud upon the revisionists-plaintiffs, as power of attorney itself is forged as well as unregistered document and no sale-deed on the basis of the said document could have been executed. Counsel for the revisionists-plai