IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 1274 of 2025 SMT. SEEMA TALREJA AND OTHERS Versus GHANSHYAM DAS SUKHIJA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri C.P. Singh - Advocate for applicants.

Respondent No.1 - Ghanshyam Das Sukhija is present in person along with Ms. Khushboo Sukhija - Advocate.

ORDER

1. This civil revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 4/11/2025 passed by 19th Civil Judge Junior Division Gwalior in civil suit No.630A/2016, by which the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. In order to decide this civil revision, it is suffice to mention here that the respondent No.1 Ghanshyam Das Sukhija has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as for mandatory injunction i.e. for possession after demolishing the construction. Admitted fact is that the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed. However, in the suit, a decree for possession in the nature of mandatory injunction, was also sought. Thus, it is clear that although the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed but he is also not in possession of the same. Earlier an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed which was rejected by the trial Court by order dated

19/12/2017 passed in Civil Suit No.630A/2016. The applicant preferred civil revision No.170/2018 which was allowed by order dated 08.09.2025 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to decide as to whether ad valorem court fee is payable on the relief for possession which is in the nature of mandatory injunction or not and whether the civil suit which was filed by plaintiffs was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court or not. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been re-decided by holding that so far as the plaint pleadings are concerned, they are required to be decided only after recording the evidence, and thus it was held that the objections raised by the defendants/applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be adjudicated after framing issue No.5 & 6.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that it is true that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed but admittedly he is also not in possession of the property in dispute and accordingly he is under obligation to pay the ad valorem court fee.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that the relief for possession is consequential in nature, therefore, fixed court fee is payable. The revisionist is trying to create all sorts of hurdles in early disposal of the suit. If the revision is allowed then it would open flood gate for all other persons to file application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and if the respondent No.1 is directed to pay the ad valorem court fee then he would be required to pay more than what was the consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for all the parties.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112, has held as under:

"7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to A and B, two brothers. A executes a sale deed in favour of C. Subsequently A wants to avoid the sale. A has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by A is invalid/void and non est/ illegal and he is not b