Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1997 (PNJ)

Darbara Singh v. Harjit Singh

2009-11-17

HEMANT GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT 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. 2. 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 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. 3. 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. 4. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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). 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Consequently, not only the present revision is dismissed, but also the plaint is rejected as the same does not disclose any cause of action. --------------