The requirement for ad-valorem court fees under Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act for suits seeking relief of possession, and the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Vivek Rusia, J.

With the consent of both the parties heard finally.

The petitioner being a plaintiff filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the 4th Civil Judge class-I, Indore, by which application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and a plaintiff was directed to value the suit and pay court fees accordingly.

2. According to the petitioner, he purchased an agricultural land by way of registered sale-deed dated 13.02.2003 and his name was recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 prepared forged power of attorney dated 17.11.2008 and on the basis of same, transferred certain land owned by plaintiff by registered sale-deed dated 26.04.2009 in favour of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of declaration that the power of attorney dated 17.10.2008 is forged, null and void and the sale-deed was executed on the basis of said power of attorney is not binding upon the petitioner. After notice, the defendant/respondent appeared in the Court and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 and prayed that the plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem court fees. The said application was allowed vide order dated 21.04.2011 with the direction to the plaintiff to value the suit as per value of land mentioned in the sale-deed.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.3917/2011 before this Court. This Court by order dated 27.01.2012 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the trial Court has only directed to value the suit in accordance with the market value of land in sale deed, but did not directed for payment of ad-valorem court fees.

4. In view of the aforesaid order of the High Court, the petitioner moved an application for amendment and the same was allowed and the petitioner has valued the suit according to the value mentioned in the sale-deed. Vide order dated 26.09.2012 the suit was returned to the plaintiff for presenting before the competent Court. Accordingly, the suit was presented before the 4th Civil Judge, Class-1, Indore. After notice, again the respondent/defendant appeared with an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. That the petitioner/plaintiff is require to pay the ad-valorem court fees. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the reply that issue has already been decided by the High Court hence the application is liable to be rejected. Vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2013, the trial Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the advalorem court fees because the petitioner is seeking relief of possession. Hence, the present petition before this Court by the plaintiff.

5. Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has given a wrong interpretation to the earlier order dated 21.04.2011 in which there was no issue regarding the relief of possession. The issue of valuation of payment of court fees has already been settled by the order of this Court dated 02.05.2011 in W.P. No.3917/2011. He has further been submitted that the land in dispute is an agricultural land, therefore, he is required to value the suit and pay court fees on the basis of 20 times of the land revenue under Section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court in the matter of Narayanprasad v. Jagdish and Others, reported in 2011(2) MPHT 67. He stated that since the sale deed as well as power of attorney has been obtained by way of forgery, therefore, he cannot be treated as a party to the sale deed and require to pay ad-valorem court fees in support of his contention he has further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Chopra & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in ILR (2012) MP 1852.

6. Per contra, Ms. Anita Gaud and Shri Durgesh, appearing on behalf of respondents argued in