Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Poonam Yadav And Others vs Deepak Kumar And Others on 1 September, 2011
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Civil Revision No.5239 of 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5239 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 1, 2011
Smt.Poonam Yadav and others
.....Petitioners
v.
Deepak Kumar and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.20982-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5239 of 2011 Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21.5.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rewari, vide which application of petitioners-defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') directing respondent no.1-plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deeds bearing Vasika No.8610 dated 22.1.2003 and Vasika No.9426 dated 23.2.2007, was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- Civil Revision No.5239 of 2011(O&M) -2- defendants that in the sale-deed it has been mentioned that possession has been delivered to the vendees. It is also contended that he has also claimed relief that in case during pendency of the suit he is dispossessed, a decree for mandatory injunction be also passed in his favour. Hence, in view of the same, he has contended that it amounts to seek relief of possession by respondent no.1-plaintiff.
However, contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.1-plaintiff cannot be accepted, at this stage. Averments made in the plaint are to be seen. There is no dispute that respondent no.1-plaintiff being minor is not a party to the sale-deeds. He has not claimed any relief for possession. Hence, it cannot be said that he is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of sale consideration.
Law has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564: 2010(2) RAJ 436: 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 510 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-
6. 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 Civil Revision No.5239 of 2011(O&M) -3- has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and nonest/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad- valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If 'B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a nonexecutant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)
(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause
(v) of Section 7."
Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR Civil Revision No.5239 of 2011(O&M) -4- 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:-
"Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby."
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
1.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge