S. No.124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR No.1268 of 2026 Date of Decision:09.02.2026 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner Vs.

Smt. Meena and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P.4) passed by Civil Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide which plaintiff- petitioner has been directed to deposit ad-valorem court fee on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by respondents – defendants No.1 to 3.

2. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be pased, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plaintiff- petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and has challenged the sale deeds dated 04.06.2016 and 13.6.2016 on the basis of fraud and cheating played upon him by defendants No.1 to 3 who have mentioned wrong sale consideration amount in the sale deeds. Learned counsel next contended that by way of present suit, plaintiff has not sought possession of the suit property as possession was not delivered to the respondents- defendants and the sale deeds have been challenged on the ground of fraud as payment made to plaintiff by defendants No.1 to 3 through cheques has not been released and the cheques have been dishonored and in these circumstances, no ad-valorem court fee is required to be affixed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel prayed that impugned order be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon 2017(3) Law Herald 2143 – Balwan Singh Vs. Premo Devi and another

5. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

6. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property and has challenged the sale deeds dated 04.06.2016 and 13.06.2016 in repsect of 44.44 sq. yards and 283.11 sq. yards land allegedly executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. As per his version, the payment of the sale consideration was made through cheques which have been dishonored and a fraud has been committed and sale deeds are thus liable to be cancelled.

7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the execuant of the sale deeds and since he seeks to get the sale deeds cancelled/ annulled, he is required to pay court fee as per consideration amount mentioned in the sale deeds as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010(2) ACJ 421(SC) – Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, in which it has been held that if an execuant of a deed seeks an annulment, he must seek cancellation and pay ad- valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the deed. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable to the facts in hand. Learned trial Court has also not committed any manifest error or illegality while passing the impugned order and no interference in the impugned order is thus called for and petition in hand is ordered to be dismissed.

(Yashvir Singh Rathor)

Judge February 09, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No