The court clarified the application of the Arbitration Act and the requirement for ad-valorem court fees in cases involving the validity of sale deeds and fraud.

JUDGMENT :

Anjuli Palo, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This civil revision has been filed by the applicants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) being aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2020 passed by 23rd Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 699-A/2020 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case, in short, are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a civil suit before the trial Court to declare the sale deed dated 29.10.2019 as void ab initio because it has been executed by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by playing fraud without taking the consent of the plaintiffs and therefore, it has no binding effect on the plaintiffs. In the said civil suit after receiving the notice, the applicants/defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that ad-valorem Court fee has not been paid by the plaintiffs and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law because there is a remedy for appointment of an Arbitrator. The trial Court rejected the application filed by applicants/defendants vide impugned order. Being aggrieved thereby this civil revision has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that the trial Court has committed error in ignoring the legal provision of the Court fees Act and suit valuation Act because there is a specific provision that for declaring the sale deed void, ad-valorem court fee is required to be paid. It is further submitted that as per clause (O) of the agreement, there is specific remedy for appointment of the arbitrator, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by jurisdiction of Civil Court under the Provision of Arbitration Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ambika Prasad Vs. Shriram Shiromani reported in 2011 MPLJ 184 wherein this Court has observed that, where the executant of the sale deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of that deed for which ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed is payable. The plaintiffs in their suit for declaration have prayed that the sale deed be declared as void by alleging that it was executed by Plaintiff 1 and his thumb impression were obtained on it by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The sale deed is voidable and the plaintiffs who have alleged otherwise are obliged to prove it as void. The plaintiffs, therefore, have to pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and by allowing the application filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents may be dismissed.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned order. The sale-deed dated 29.10.2019 has not been executed by the plaintiffs and it has been executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by playing fraud without taking consent of the plaintiffs, therefore, plaintiffs are not bound to pay ad-valorem Court fees. It is further submitted that the provision of the Arbitration Act is not applicable in this case because defendant No. 1 and 2 were not the party to the agreement dated 20.3.2017 executed between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and another reported in (2003) 5 SCC 531 and India Household and Healthcare Ltd. Vs. LG Household and healthcare Ltd. reported in (