IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on : 07.07.2025 Sarabjit Kaur …Petitioner V/s Avtar Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Navinder Jit Singh Dhandiwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 6.

Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents No.2 None for respondents No.4 and 5.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The present revision petition assails order dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Derabassi, vide which four applications preferred by different defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for rejection of plaint were partly allowed and order dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure P-11), vide which the petitioner-plaintiff was called upon to fix ad valorem Court fee as per the amount of sale consideration referred to in the sale deeds in question.

2. A suit for declaration was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff (Sarabjit Kaur) to the effect that sale deeds dated 13.06.2012, 09.12.2023 and 16.05.2019 executed by respondent-defendant No.1 (Avtar Singh) in favour of respondents-defendants No.2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively were illegal, null and void, the same having been executed without legal necessity. A declaration was also sought that the petitioner-plaintiff was a coparcener and was, therefore, the owner in joint possession of the suit property. Consequential relief of joint possession and mandatory injunction along with permanent injunction restraining defendants No.2 to 5 from alienating the suit property was also sought. The petitioner-plaintiff claimed to be the adopted daughter of respondent-defendant No.1 (Avatar Singh) and, under the circumstances, laid challenge to the sale deeds in question.

3. Applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexures P-2 to P-5) were filed by different defendants on the ground that ad valorem Court fee was required to be affixed since execution of the sale deeds had been challenged. The applications were opposed by way of replies (Annexures P-6 to P-9), taking a stand that the sale deeds had not been challenged on the ground of fraud and possession had not been sought as a result of which, ad valorem Court fee was not required to be affixed. Vide order dated 19.04.2023, the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were partly allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to affix ad valorem Court fee. Vide order dated 16.11.2023, the Court fee was found to be deficient and the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to affix Court fee as per the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders are not sustainable. It was submitted that since the petitioner was not the executant of the sale deeds and the relief of possession had not been sought, ad valorem Court fee is not required to be affixed. He placed reliance upon judgments in the case of Tarsem Singh and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others (CR-4753-2005, decided on 15.07.2011), Ashwani vs. Murti Devi and others (CR-6333-2015, decided on 20.12.2016) and Harjinder Singh and others vs. Kuldeep Kaur, 2022 (2) PLR 565

6. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel representing the respondents that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. It was submitted that the petitioner was out of possession and since relief of joint possession had been sought, ad valorem Court fee had rightly been ordered to be affixed.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is well settled that for the purpose of deciding an application for rejection of the plaint, only the contents of the plaint and the documents attached therewith are to be seen. The plaint is on record as Annexure P-1.

The relief sought is as under:-

“It is, therefore resp