JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This is a petition originally filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Varanasi in Civil Revision No.-257 of 2010 filed by the defendant-respondent in the suit. Since after the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Lal and others, 2015 (5) SCC 423, the petition arising out of an order passed in the Civil Suit is only maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has moved an amendment application. Both the parties agree that the petition may be permitted to be amended forthwith to be read with also as under Article 227 of the Constitution and the petition may also be disposed of on merits. Hence, amendment application is allowed and learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the provision clause of memo of the petition forthwith.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit has been filed through power of attorney holder of the vendor for cancellation of a sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the defendant-respondent registered on 28th April, 2008. One of the issues framed was that whether the suit was under valued and the said issue was framed as issue No.3(A). The objection, it appears, was raised by the defendant-respondents that the suit was under valued and, accordingly, the issue came to be framed and also came to be adjudicated initially as a preliminary issue on the question of valuation of the suit property.

4. The trial court after hearing the parties on the said issue decided that the suit property was properly assessed valued and, accordingly, the court fee paid was in accordance with law. Hence, the second issue whether the court fee has not been properly paid as issue No.3(B) was decided in negative and then issue No.4 as to whether the court has the jurisdiction to decide was decided in affirmative. Thus, all the three preliminary issues regarding valuation of the property, payment of the court fee and the jurisdiction of the court to hear and try the suit as issue Nos. 3(A), 3(B) and 4 were all decided in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant-respondent filed a revision challenging the order of trial court and revision has came to be allowed setting aside the order of the trial court holding that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suhrit Singh @ Sardul Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 (2) JCLR 818, in which it was held that in case if the suit was filed cancellation of the sale deed by the vendor himself then the valuation of the property will be considering the consideration for which the conveyance was executed and accordingly the court fee will be payable, the court below decided the issue No.-3(A) in affirmative and issue No.3(B) and 4 also in affirmative, vide judgment and order dated 21st April, 2011.

5. The basic arguments raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is that the court below has failed to consider the relevant provisions of U.P. Amendment to the Central Act, namely, the Court Fees Act, 1870 which takes full care in cases of suit for cancellation of sale deed in respect of immovable property and has also further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Ravindra Nath Singh and others, 2014 (122) RD 507.

6. Per contra, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that Section 37 of Andra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is pari materia to the provision Section 7(v)(i)(a) of the Court Fees Act, Section (vii-A) and, therefore, he argues for the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Polamrasetti Manikyam and another v. Teegala Venkata Ramayya and another in Civil Appeal Nos. 2456-2457 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16353-54 of 2012 decided on 19th February, 2014 is fully attracted in