ORDER

1. This civil revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 18.8.2025 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No.977/2024 by which, an application filed by applicants/defendants under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC with regard to nonpayment of ad valorem Court fee has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that respondent had executed a sale deed dated 18.11.2021 in favour of present applicants. Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the said sale deed as null and void on the ground that she had never executed the sale deed, but in fact she wanted to execute the mortgage deed. It is further submitted that even in Paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.19,03,000/- was paid through cheque issued by Loan Awas Finance Ltd. It is submitted that although the respondent had claimed that the sale deed was executed by playing fraud on her but such a stand is nothing, but a camouflage and prima facie false statement on behalf of plaintiff herself. It is submitted that whenever any loan is sanctioned by the Finance Company, then such sanction of loan is preceded by various formalities, including the verification of title, valuation of the property and for those purposes also, separate fee is payable. It is submitted that it is true that in case of a fraud even, the executant can get away from payment of ad valorem Court fee, but the false plea of fraud should not be allowed to be taken in such a lighter manner, so that a clever drafting of plaint may give the benefit of exemption from ad varlorem Court fee.

3. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted by counsel for respondent that respondent wanted to take loan from HDFC Bank and in connection with the same, she had handed over the entire documents to the partner of her son. Since she was a victim of fraud played on her, therefore, she is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manzoor Ahmed v. Jaggi Bai and others reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 182.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

5. If somebody is intending to take finance from the Finance Company then, he/she is required to undergo various formalities and the procedure would start from the date of making of application, verification of title, submission of the title deeds, valuation of the property for which, separate fee is required to be paid. It is not the case of the plaintiff/respondent that she had undergone all such formalities. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondent that she is an illiterate person and she cannot read and write. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that Sub-Registrar was not present at the time of the registration of sale deed and it is also not the case of respondent that even though the Sub- Registrar had misled her by informing that the document of mortgage is being registered.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that just in order to avoid the payment of Court fee and in order to develop the case for declaration of the sale deed as null and void, a false ground has been raised by plaintiff that she was a victim of fraud.

7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for contesting the case by payment of fixed Court fees.

8. The plea of fraud has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and it appears that the trial Court was swayed away by a simple pleading that respondent No.1/plaintiff was the victim of fraud. Under these circumstances, it is held that since respondent was the executant of the sale deed and, therefore, she is under obligation to pay the ad valorem Court fee.

9. Accordingly, order dated 18.8.2025 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No.977/2024 cannot be given the stamp of judicial approval. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

10.