JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.4.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar, whereby on an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., he has been directed to pay the ad valorem court-fee on the value of the impugned sale-deeds while observing as under:
…Here the plaintiff is challenging the sale deeds on the ground that the alleged power of attorney on the basis of which they executed the sale deeds itself is a forged document. When one looks the documents, it is found that, he is executing the sale deeds through its power of attorney. It means that he is executing the sale deed himself though he is executing the same through his power of attorney. So it means that when a person is challenging those sale deeds and he is a party to those sale deeds, he cannot say that as the same had been executed by his power of attorney, therefore, he is not party’ to that. When the document has been executed by his power of attorney on his behalf it means that he is a party to that and the law is clear on this point that when such kind of suits had been filed, then the party who is challenging the sale-deeds, alleged to be executed by him or through his attorney, he is required to pay ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration.
2. I have heard the counsel for the parties. In this case, the plaintiff was challenged six sale-deeds executed by his attorney to be illegal, null and void and not binding on him. Since, the plaintiff is a party to the documents through his attorney, therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur (1982)84 P.L.R. 127 (P&H), the trial court has rightly directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee.
3. No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made
Dismissed.