JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Aggrieved by order dated 13.01.2011 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur thereby directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration of the two sale deeds which are under challenge in the suit, plaintiff Parkasho @ Parkash Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order. 2. Plaintiff’s case is that on the basis of power of attorney allegedly executed by her predecessor and husband Hansa, defendant No.6- Kewal Singh executed two impugned sale deeds. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the power of attorney in question was never executed by her husband and, therefore, the sale deeds in question are null and void. 3. Defendants No.1 to 3 who are none else but daughters of plaintiff herself filed application Annexure P-3 for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deeds under challenge. The plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P-4 opposed the said application alleging that the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration only qua the sale deeds and has not sought the relief of cancellation thereof. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is not purported to be party to the alleged sale deeds and therefore she is not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deeds. 4. Learned trial Court vide order Annexure P-5 allowed the application Annexure P-3 moved by defendants No.1 to 3 and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner very forcefully and emphatically contended that the impugned sale deeds are void and plaintiff has not claimed cancellation thereof and plaintiff is not party thereto and, therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. The contention cannot be accepted in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 . The contention cannot be accepted in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 . It has been categorically laid down in the said judgment that if the plaintiff while challenging the sale deed cleverly couches the relief to seek declaration without seeking cancellation of the sale deed, it would not affect the question of payment of Court fee. The court has to see the substance and contents and not the form of the suit. It has been laid down that if a party to the sale deed challenges it, then ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed has to be paid. But if a person who is not party to the sale deed challenges it and does not claim for relief of possession, then ad valorem Court fee is not payable. In the instant case, the sale deeds under challenge purport to have been executed in the name and on behalf of plaintiff’s predecessor in interest/husband through his alleged power of attorney. The question whether power of attorney was in fact executed by plaintiff’s husband or not can be adjudicated only after trial of the suit. At this stage, it cannot be said that the said power of attorney was not executed by the plaintiff’s husband. If any such finding is recorded at this stage then the suit itself would stand decided without trial. Since the sale deeds have been executed in the name and on behalf of plaintiff’s husband and predecessor, the plaintiff as successor-in-interest of her husband claiming through him purports to be party to the sale deeds and is, therefore, liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds in view of dictum of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra). 7. Counsel for the petitioner also cited two judgments of this Court i.e. Chhote Lal versus Ansal Housing & Estate Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 Punjab and Haryana 302 and Mussammat Zeb-Ul-Nisa and others versus Chaudhri Din Mohammad and others and K. S. Chaudhri Feroze Din, Vol. XLIII 1941, The Punjab Law Reporter, 106 and one judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manzor Ahmed versus Jaggi Bai and others, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 356. XLIII 1941, The Punjab Law Reporter, 106 and one judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manzor Ahmed versus Jaggi Bai and others, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 356. However, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra), the conclusion recorded in the preceding paragraph is affirmed. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to require interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------