JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Plaintiff Sombir Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 18.08.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Jind. 2. Petitioner herein filed suit challenging sale deeds dated 10.05.2006 and 21.06.2006 and the consequent mutations. While the plaintiff was minor, his mother Chhoti Devi filed guardian petition under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for permission to sell 24 kanals agricultural land of the share of the petitioner-plaintiff. The Guardian Judge, vide judgment dated 27.04.2006, granted necessary permission to petitioner’s mother subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, petitioner’s mother Chhoti Devi executed sale deeds dated 10.05.2006 and 21.06.2006regarding plaintiff’s land for Rs.15,00,000/- and mutations have also been sanctioned accordingly. The plaintiff has alleged the said sale deeds to be result of fraud etc. The plaintiff has also claimed relief of possession of the suit land. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit and also held that the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds before filing appeal. Plaintiff preferred first appeal before District Judge against judgment and decree of the trial court. Along with the appeal, plaintiff moved application Annexure P-1 seeking stay on direction of the trial court regarding payment of ad valorem court fee on amount of sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds. The said application has been dismissed by learned District Judge by passing impugned order. The appellant-petitioner has been given twenty days’ time to affix ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the plaintiff-petitioner is not required to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds and rather in view of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short – the Act), the plaintiff has to pay court fees on market value of the agricultural land in suit, as determined under the said provision, as applicable to Haryana i.e. @ Rs.100/- per acre i.e. at nominal rates depending upon the kind of agricultural land. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others reported as [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 : 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1356 (SC)] : (2010-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 707, as followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dara Singh vs. Gurbachan Singh and others (C. R. No. 22 of 2009 – decided on 03.05.2010). 6. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. In fact, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) goes against the petitioner in the instant case. It has been held in that judgment that if executant of the sale deed challenges the same, he has to pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. In the instant case, the impugned sale deeds have been executed in the name of the petitioner-plaintiff, although through his mother as his guardian as the petitioner-plaintiff was then minor. However, the fact remains that the sale deeds have been executed on behalf of the petitioner himself. Consequently, the petitioner is the executant of the sale deeds in question and it cannot be said that petitioner’s mother is executant of the sale deeds and petitioner is not executant thereof. Consequently, following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra), the petitioner has to pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order of the lower appellate court. In so far as judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Singh (supra) is concerned, only observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) have been quoted and nothing more has been added to the same by way of principle of law or precedent. Consequently, in view of aforesaid judgments relied on by counsel for the petitioner himself, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the impugned order of the lower appellate court. On the other hand, impugned order of the lower appellate court finds full support from judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra), as followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dara Singh (supra). 7. On the other hand, impugned order of the lower appellate court finds full support from judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra), as followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dara Singh (supra). 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 8. As prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner, since time granted by the lower appellate court to pay ad valorem court fee is expiring today, the appellant-petitioner is granted one month’s time from today to pay requisite court fee in the lower appellate court. ------------