Nischal Bhatia vs Shyamapada & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4137 Del

*               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

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

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