Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vineet Chadar vs Anil Kumar Chadar on 7 July, 2025

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29777




                                                               1                            MP-3380-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                     ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                 MISC. PETITION No. 3380 of 2025
                                                VINEET CHADAR AND OTHERS
                                                          Versus
                                              ANIL KUMAR CHADAR AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Prajas Bhatti - Advocate for the petitioners.
                                   Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for the State.

                                                                   ORDER

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure-P/5) passed by trial Court by which direction has been given to pay ad-valorem Court fees.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were not the executant of sale deed and, therefore, they are not required to pay ad-valorem Court fees. Reliance is placed on the judgment

passed by the Apex Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112.

3. Heard the counsel for petitioner.

4. In said case, Apex Court has given an illustration that if A is executant of sale deed and he wants to avoid it then he is required to pay ad- valorem Court fees. B who is not executant of sale deed and not a party to it

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29777

2 MP-3380-2025 and wants to avoid the same sale deed then he is not required to pay ad- valorem Court fees. It has further been explained by Apex Court that if any consequential relief is sought by B then B is also required to pay ad-valorem Court fees. Petitioners are praying for relief of permanent injunction against respondents. Relief of permanent injunction can only be granted if they succeed in first relief i.e. declaration of sale-deed to be null and void. As sale deed has been executed in respect of ancestral property of plaintiffs, therefore, relief of permanent injunction can be granted only if plaintiff succeeds in relief of declaration. Court fee is to be affixed on the basis of pleadings made in the plaint and W.S. filed by the defendants cannot be looked into.

5. Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of Apex Court.

Relief of permanent injunction flows from the main relief of declaration of sale-deed to be null and void, therefore, relief of permanent injunction is consequential in nature in this case.

6. No error is found in the order passed by trial Court directing petitioners to pay ad valorem court fee.

7. In view of same, petition is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE