Judgment:
CR No.7288 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7288 of 2012 Date of Decision : December 6, 2012 Sheela Devi & others .....Petitioners Versus Pawan Kumar & others .....Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present : Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs No.3, 4 and 7 have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) moved by defendants No.2 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint for not payment of ad valorem court fee.
In the suit, plaintiffs has challenged power of attorney executed by them in favour of defendant No.1 who, on the basis thereof, executed sale deed of the suit property on behalf of the plaintiffs in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 for consideration of `12,20,000/-.
The said consequential sale deed has also been challenged in the suit.
CR No.7288 o”
2. Defendants No.2 to 4 in their application (Annexure P-2) alleged that plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the impugned sale deed.
The plaintiffs by filing reply (Annexure P-3) resisted the said application and claimed that they are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee because they had not executed the sale deed and also because they have also not claimed the relied of possession.
Learned trial court vide impugned order (Annexure P-4) has allowed the application (Annexure P-2) and has directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the impugned sale deed.
Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that petitioners are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee because they have not claimed relief of possession of the suit property and also because they have not executed the sale deed.
The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.
Plaintiffs have admitted that they executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 although plaintiffs challenged the same and alleged that it was obtained by fraud etc.On the basis of power of attorney, defendant No.1 executed the impugned sale deed on behalf of plaintiffs.
It is thus manifest that plaintiffs are vendors and party to the sale deed in question.
Consequently, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh, 2010 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1371, plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration CR No.7288 o”
3. mentioned in the impugned sale deed, even if plaintiffs have not claimed relief of possession of the suit property.
There is, therefore, no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to call interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L.N.MITTAL ) 6.12.2012 JUDGE Anand