JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Plaintiff Boda Ram has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) to the extent of directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the sale deed, which is under challenge in the suit. 2. Petitioner has filed suit against respondents as defendants vide plaint Annexure P-1. In the suit, the plaintiff has challenged sale deed dated 01.06.2007 executed by plaintiff’s brother Rampat (since deceased) in favour of defendants no. 1 to 4. The plaintiff has sought relief in favour of plaintiff and proforma defendants-respondents no. 5 and 6, who are also brother and sister respectively of plaintiff and vendor Rampat. 3. Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-2), besides deciding application for temporary injunction, has also directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deed. The said part of the order is under challenge in the instant revision petition. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, whereas none has appeared for the respondents in spite of service. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Beena and others vs. Rajinder Kumar and others reported as [2006(1) Law Herald (P&H) 832] : 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 449 and also on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely 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 AIR (SC) 2807, contended that the plaintiff being not executant of impugned sale deed, is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration thereof. It was also submitted that the plaintiff has not claimed relief of possession of the suit land and for this reason also, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee. It was further contended that even in suit for possession of agricultural land, court fee is payable on market value to be determined in accordance with Section 7 (iv) (c) read with Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, as applicable to State of Haryana i.e. on market value of the land @ Rs.60/- per acre, Rs.50/- per acre or Rs.30/- per acre, depending on the kind of land. 6. 6. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that plaintiff and proforma defendants no. 5 and 6 have inherited the suit land from vendor Rampat – executant of the sale deed. Consequently, the plaintiff claims to have stepped into the shoes of vendor, and therefore, becomes executant of the impugned sale deed. In view thereof, plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deed. This view finds support from judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra). The position would have been different if the plaintiff had claimed the suit land in his own right during the lifetime of Rampat – vendor. Then the plaintiff, as non-executant of the sale deed, would not have been liable to pay ad valorem court fee. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff filed the suit after the death of Rampat and claiming to be his heir along with proforma defendants-respondent no. 5 and 6. Consequently, the plaintiff, having stepped into the shoes of executant of sale deed, is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration thereof. 7. As regards applicability of Section 7 (iv) (c) read with Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, the same has no applicability to the instant case because the plaintiff has not claimed relief of possession of the suit land and also because his liability to pay court fee is to be determined on the basis as to whether he is executant of the sale deed or not. An executant of the sale deed, challenging the sale deed, has to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration thereof and not in accordance with Section 7 (iv) (c) read with Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act. 8. In the instant case, plaintiff having stepped into the shoes of the executant of sale deed, is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration thereof. Consequently, there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court, so as to warrant interference in this regard in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus found to be meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court, so as to warrant interference in this regard in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus found to be meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner shall now pay the requisite court fee in the trial court, within two months from today, failing which the plaint shall be liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due to non-payment of court fees. ---------0.B.S.0------------