* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.782/2010 and C.M. No.10717/2010 (stay)
% 3rd September, 2014
NISCHAL BHATIA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh Bawa, Advocate.
VERSUS
SHYAMAPADA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns two orders of the trial court dated 30.3.2010 and 30.4.2010. By the first order dated 30.3.2010, the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint by paying the court fee on the relief of cancellation of the sale deed and also accordingly change the pecuniary jurisdiction. By the second order dated 30.4.2010, an amendment application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for relinquishing the relief of CM(M) No.782/2010 Page 1 of 3 cancellation of the sale deed has been dismissed and the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to comply with the earlier order dated 30.3.2010.
2. Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112 has held that if a person is a party to a document, then, such a person must apply for cancellation of the sale deed and pay court fee on the consideration as mentioned in the sale deed, however, if a person is not a party to a document, it is enough for such a person to file a suit for declaration and he need not pay court fee on the consideration mentioned in the sale deed.
3. In the present case, since the petitioner/plaintiff does not admit that he is party to the sale deed of which cancellation is sought inasmuch as petitioner/plaintiff states that his signatures on the sale deed which are impugned are forged and fabricated, actually petitioner/plaintiff will therefore not be party to the sale deed and will not have to pay court fee on the consideration as mentioned in the sale deed and also will not have to value the suit as per the consideration as stated in the sale deed.
4. In view of the above, impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner/plaintiff is also allowed to withdraw his amendment application filed before the trial court and which was dismissed on 30.4.2010. The first CM(M) No.782/2010 Page 2 of 3 order dated 30.3.2010 is set aside and it is held that the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as per the averments made in the existing plaint with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee.
5. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
CM(M) No.782/2010 Page 3 of 3