IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA rd ON THE 3 OF MAY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 464 of 2016 BETWEEN:-

SANJIV MAHESHWARI S/O SHRI PRAFUL KUMAR MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, E-3/22 ARERA COLONY TEH. HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AJAY GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAJEEV MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. AMAR SINGH S/O SHRI PANNALAL, AGED ABOUT

40 YEARS, VILL. HOLIPURA TEH. BUDHNI DISTT.

SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SHASHANK NATHANIAL S/O H.S.NATHANIAL B-41, SIDDHARATH LAKE CITY ANAND NAGAR, RAISEN ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SANJIV MAHESHWARI S/O P K MAHESHWARI 7 SHIV SANGAM NAGAR, KHAJURI KALAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THOUGH COLLECTOR SEHORE SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI SAHIL PILLAI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 AND MS. SARASWATI BADGAIYA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.4 / STATE )

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This civil revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA has been preferred by the plaintiff / applicant challenging the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore, in Regular Civil Suit No. 8-A/2016, whereby learned Court below by allowing the defendant 1's application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., has directed the plaintiff to pay requisite ad valorem Court fee on the valuation of the suit property.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicant as plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 7.8.2014 is void ab initio as it has been executed by the persons having no right or title. The suit is also filed on the fact that the plaintiff is the original owner and in possession of his agricultural land comprising in Khasra no. 44/5, area 20 acres situated at village Pandado, Patwari Halka No.13, Tahsil Budni, District Sehore (MP). The said land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 29.03.1986. In the month of September, 2014 the applicant / plaintiff received a notice from the Court of Tahsildar, Budni of Case No.28/A-6/13-14 for appearance before the Tahsildar Court on 12.09.2014. This case was filed by respondent / defendant no. 1 Amar Singh for mutation of suit land. On 12.09.2014 the applicant appeared before the Tahsildar, Budni, he was shocked to see that some fraudster defendant no. 3 had impersonated himself as Sanjeev Maheshwari and had executed a forged power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 2 Satish Kumar Verma and defendant no. 2 on the strength of such forged power of attorney illegally executed one sale deed dated 7.8.2014 in favour of defendant no.1.

3 . The defendants were served. The defendant no.1 by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has raised an objection in respect Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA of maintainability of the suit and a prayer was also made for issuance of a direction to the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee as per the market value of the suit property.

4. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application contending therein that the plaintiff has neither executed any sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 nor he is signatory of the sale deed, therefore, he is bound to pay the fixed court fees and has presented the plaint on a fixed court fee of Rs.2000/- as per Article 17 (III) of the Schedule of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

5 . However, the trial Court by the impugned order has decided the objection raised by the defendant no.1 and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee.

6 . Learned counsel for the plaintiff has assailed the order of the trial court by contending that the sale deed regarding which declaration is sought has been executed by the defendants and not by the plaintiff. Further, the persons executing power of