Darbara Singh vs Harjit Singh And Others on 17 November, 2009

C.R.No.4901 of 2009                                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                C.R.No.4901 of 2009

                                Date of Decision : 17.11.2009


Darbara Singh                                       ...Petitioner

                                Versus

Harjit Singh and others                             ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate,
         for the petitioner.

          Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate,
          for respondent No.2.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

15.6.2009, whereby the plaintiff-petitioner was directed to pay ad

valorem Court fee on the value of sale consideration of the sale deeds,

subject matter of challenge in the suit.

The plaintiff has challenged sale deed dated 29.10.2007

executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 and sale deed dated

7.1.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The

material facts as pleaded by the plaintiff read as under:

3. That the sale deed No.8409 dated 29.10.2007 is null and
void, result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion and
without passing of any consideration and hence the same is
created to harass the plaintiff and to grab his property, so
such a null and void document has no effect on the rights of
the plaintiff and other co-sharers, so the sale deed in question
is liable to be set aside.

4. That the defendant No.1 has no concern with the suit land
C.R.No.4901 of 2009 2

and he has no right, title or interest in the suit property and
possession of any part of the suit land has not been taken by
the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff also never agreed to
handover the possession of any inch of land to the defendant
No.1.

5. That the defendant No.1 has executed a null and void sale
deed No.11565 dated 7.1.2009 in favour of the defendant
No.2 by way of collusion with him. It is made clear that
when the defendant No.1 has not become owner and in
possession of any part of the suit land through any legal and
valid sale deed, then how he has any right to transfer the
property of the plaintiff and his co-sharers to defendant
No.2, so the sale deed No.11565 dated 7.1.2009 is also null
and void, result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 to frustrate the rights of the plaintiff.
So, the sale deed No.11565 dated 7.1.2009 is also liable to be
set aside.

The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure that since the sale deed executed by the

plaintiff has been challenged, the plaintiff is entitled to pay ad valorem

Court fee. It is the said application, which was allowed by the trial Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and is of the

opinion that the plaintiff has filed a totally frivolous suit, which does not

disclose any cause of action. The plaint does not disclose any particulars

of the fraud as is required under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. In terms of the said provisions, the party pleading, if relies on

any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue

influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary

beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with

dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.
C.R.No.4901 of 2009 3

In the plaint except the use of words fraud, misrepresentation

and collusion, the plaintiff has not given any instance how the execution

of the sale deed dated 29.10.2007 is result of fraud and misrepresentation.

In the absence of any such pleading, it cannot be said that the plaint

discloses a cause of action. In the absence of discloser of cause of action,

the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 clause (a).

In view of the said fact though the learned trial Court has

directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee, but on the production

of the copy of the plaint, I am of the opinion that the plaint does not

disclose any cause of action.

Though the order passed by the learned trial Court was an order

directing the plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee, but the fact that the

plaint does not disclose any cause of action was put to the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not

explain that how the plaint discloses any cause of action in respect of

which the plaintiff can seek declaration.

Consequently, not only the present revision is dismissed, but

also the plaint is rejected as the same does not disclose any cause of

action.

16.11.2009                                        (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                                 JUDGE