IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7677-2025 DECIDED ON: 30.10.2025 ANJU RANI .....PETITIONER VERSUS SANTOSH DEVI AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner–defendant has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiffs–respondents No. 1 to 4 have instituted a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 27.07.2024, executed by their predecessor-in-interest late Sh. Vikram Singh in favour of the present petitioner, as well as the consequent mutation dated 30.08.2024, are illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that after execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the deceased executant had handed over physical possession of the suit property to the petitioner and that she has been in peaceful possession since then. It is submitted that the plaintiffs, in order to avoid payment of ad valorem court fee, have falsely pleaded that they are in possession of the suit property and are, therefore, not liable to pay ad valorem court fee applicable to a suit for cancellation of a sale deed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiffs, being legal representatives of the deceased executant, are not the executants of the impugned document but are non-executants and not in possession of the property in question. Hence, they are required to pay ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, since the relief of declaration necessarily carries the consequential relief of possession. It is further argued that the plaintiffs’ plea of being in possession is an artificial and evasive pleading, deliberately taken to circumvent the statutory requirement of proper court fee. Therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application and has misapplied the ratio of ‘Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., 2010 AIR SC

2807’.

4. The matter being limited in scope and involving a short question of law, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondent.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having carefully perused the impugned order as well as the relevant pleadings on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned trial Court.

6. The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order whereby the application filed by the petitioner–defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of deficit court fee has been dismissed. It is the argument of the petitioner that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of late Sh. Vikram Singh, who had executed a registered sale deed dated 27.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner, and that actual possession of the suit property was delivered to her at the time of execution. It is further contended that the plaintiffs, while challenging the said sale deed, have mischievously pleaded that they continue to be in possession merely to evade payment of ad valorem court fee, and hence, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

7. However, a perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they are in possession of the suit property and have sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 27.07.2024 and the consequential mutation dated 30.08.2024 are null and void and not binding on their rights. It is further apparent that the plainti