JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral) - Despite several calls made, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Pursuant to stay order dated 01.06.2011 and despite the fact that it is an admitted case in terms of order dated 25.04.2013, the same has been listed in motion hearing for arguments. 2. Vide impugned order dated 29.04.2011 the revisionist/plaintiff has been called upon to pay ad-volrem Court fee on the consideration of the sale deed dated 26.05.2010, which is under challenge at the instance by the plaintiff in the suit on the ground of fraud in the Court below. Perusal of the impugned order as also the application of the defendants requiring the plaintiff/petitioner herein to pay advolrem Court fee and reply to such application furnished by the petitioner/plaintiff reveal that the validity and legality of the sale deed has been questioned by seeking declaration by the plaintiff that he continues to be owner of land mentioned therein. There is consistent case of the plaintiff that he continues to be in possession of the land and had not received any penny as part of the consideration of the sale. 3. Perusal of the sale deed also reveals that no consideration has changed hands from the defendants to the plaintiff. Ground of fraud has elaborately been narrated and has been detailed in the plaint. 4. If ground of fraud is proved, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad-volrem Court fee on declaration sought in the suit. In this regard counsel for the petitioner has cited Ram Bai Vs. Kapoori & another reported as 2014(4) R.C.R.(Civil)376 Punjab & Haryana High Court. 5. It is to be mentioned here that the Court below is to decide on evidence to be produced by the parties, as to whether the sale deed in question is result of fraud or not but the averments made in the plaint by the petitioner/plaintiff are clear, categorical and detailed one. There are stark facts viz; (i) No consideration had passed hands from the defendant to the plaintiff No.1. (ii)Possession continues with the plaintiff, and, (iii)At the time of sanction of the mutation, presence of the plaintiff was not procured. 6. When the consideration has not passed hands and possession continues with the plaintiff, it is a clear case where ad-volrem Court fees is not payable by the plaintiff. (ii)Possession continues with the plaintiff, and, (iii)At the time of sanction of the mutation, presence of the plaintiff was not procured. 6. When the consideration has not passed hands and possession continues with the plaintiff, it is a clear case where ad-volrem Court fees is not payable by the plaintiff. Since the suit is for declaration in which sale deed is executed without payment of consideration and no relief of possession is claimed, there is no requirement for affixing ad-volrem Court fees. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is merit in this revision petition. By accepting the revision petition the impugned order is set aside and consequently application of the respondent/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is dismissed. 8. However, Trial Court is called upon to complete the adjudication within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————