ORDER 1. In these petitions a common order dated 10.2.2006 has been assailed which has been passed by the trial Court in the matter of payment of court-fees. 2. In the plaint which has been filed by plaintiff/petitioner it has been prayed that sale-deed dated 2.12.2000 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, void and is not binding on the plaintiff; alternatively prayer for payment of sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-has been prayed. Injunction has also been sought against the defendants not to make sale of constructed houses nor to make any development in the remaining area. Restoration of possession of 12 acres of land has also been prayed along with the cost of suit. 3. The suit has been valued at Rs.18 lakhs for the purpose of valuation for declaration, for injunction it has been valued at Rs.1,000/- and for possession on the basis of land revenue suit has been valued. The total valuation is Rs.18,02,600/-, court-fees of Rs. 7,600/- has been paid. The trial Court has per impugned order has held that the relief of refund of consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs has been prayed and possession has also been prayed, plaintiff has to pay the ad-valorem court-fees on the valuation of Rs.18 lakhs. 4. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff has executed the registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 2.12.2000. The consideration was to be paid in instalment by the cheques drawn in favour of Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. inspite of demand made by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has not handed over the cheques to the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 has entered into an agreement with defendant No.2 for develpoment and construction. The defendant No.2 has made the development over the part of the land as the consideration has not been received the sale deed is void,' hence suit has been filed. It is also averred that certain houses have also been constructed by the defendant No.2. 5. An application was filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that plaint has not been properly valued. Proper court-fees has not been paid. The valuation which has been made for different reliefs is not proper. Application was contested. The trial Court has passed the aforesaid order which has been impugned in the instant case. 6. 5. An application was filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that plaint has not been properly valued. Proper court-fees has not been paid. The valuation which has been made for different reliefs is not proper. Application was contested. The trial Court has passed the aforesaid order which has been impugned in the instant case. 6. Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the other reliefs flow from declaration that sale-deed was illegal and void. Thus, the learned counsel has submitted that the valuation of the suit and court-fees paid was proper. Court could not have asked for payment of ad-valorem court-fees in the circumstances of the case. 7. Shri Manoj Sharma with Shri S.S. Thakur for the defendants/ petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the trial Court in regard to ad-valorem court-fees is proper. However, the trial Court has not looked into the valuation part whether for the different reliefs valuation made is proper or not. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the plaint's averments, it is clear that plaintiff was aware of the character of the document, which he has executed and he was aware of contents of the document in question also though relief has been claimed couched in the form that sale-deed is void. The averment of the plaint goes to show that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation as to character of the document and its contents. In case of misrepresentation as to the character of the document and its contents both, the transaction is void. When transaction is void, it is not necessary to seek relief for setting aside the document and no consequential relief is employed in the relief for declaration which may require ad-valorem court-fees under section 7 (c) of Court Fees Act but in the instant case facts are otherwise. There was no such misrepresentation as to character and contents of sale-deed, hence order passed by the trial Court is found to be proper. As per decision of this Court in Partap Kunji v. Puniya Bai [1976 JLJ 703 = 1976 MPLJ 627 ], it cannot be said that plaintiff can avoid the payment of court-fees. The question was considered by this Court thus: "5. As per decision of this Court in Partap Kunji v. Puniya Bai [1976 JLJ 703 = 1976 MPLJ 627 ], it cannot be said that plaintiff can avoid the payment of court-fees. The question was considered by this Court thus: "5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied mainly on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Santoshchandra and others v. Gyansunder Bai [ 1970 JLJ 290 = 1970 MPLJ 363 ] it was held in that case that where it is necessary for a plaintiff to avoid an agreement or a decree or a liability imposed, he must seek the relief of having that decree, agreement, instrument or liability set aside and he is not entitled to a declaration simpliciter in such cases. This decision was followed in Sunderbai v. Manohar Singh Yadav [1974 JLJ Note 75]. In that case plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration and for permanent injunction alleging that the sale-deed in question was got executed by her by playing fraud. The plaintiff was held liable to pay advalorem court-fees under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. From the aforesaid decisions it is clear that where a person who is party to an agreement or transaction and his allegation is that it is not binding on him because it was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, it is necessary for him to seek the consequential relief of setting aside such agreement or transaction and as such the suit falls within the purview of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. But the question of avoiding an agreement or an instrument arises only where it is voidable. If it is wholly void a mere declaration that it is so, is sufficient and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to seek the relief of setting aside something which has no existence in law. It is not necessary to ask for relief of setting aside an agreement or an instrument which is wholly void." In the alternative the relief of payment of sale consideration has also been prayed along with possession, thus the order with respect to advalorem court-fees is found to be proper. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that trial Court has not considered the question whether the valuation for other reliefs made is proper or not. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that trial Court has not considered the question whether the valuation for other reliefs made is proper or not. The question if raised before the trial Court has to be considered by it. 9. Question of limitation has been raised for the first time in the writ petition filed by the defendant/petitioner, thus question cannot be examined in the writ petition at the first instance. If permissible petitioner has to raise such an objection before the trial Court. 10. I find no ground to interfere in this petition. Same is hereby dismissed.