Ranjit Singh, J.

1. Being aggrieved against the order directing the petitioner to affix the ad valorem court fees, she has filed this revision petition.

2. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the respondents for dismissing the plaint and for direction to the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fees on a sum of Rs. l,35,000/-, which is the sale consideration. The petitioner has challenged the cancellation of sale deed dated 28.8.1991. The case set up in the application is that the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the sale deed praying that she is not bound by the said sale deed as the same was got executed by making somebody else to appear on her behalf. In support of her contention, she has placed on record a report from the expert.

3. The trial Court, however, by relying upon the ratio of law laid down in Ajmer Singh v. Punjab Singh (minor) 2007(1) R.C.R. 436 (P&H) has observed that even in such eventuality where cancellation of a sale deed is sought on the ground of fraud, the petitioner would be required to affix ad valorem court fees. The ratio of law laid down in the case of Smt. Aruna Bansal v. Smt. Janak Dulari 2000(1) R.C.R. 654 and Teja Singh v. Smt. Amar Kaur and Ors. was distinguished as question of the possession is not involved.

4. Since the petitioner has challenged the sale consideration qua her share, which is 1/3rd, she was directed to make up the deficiency of the court fees to the extent of 1/3rd.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would agitatingly argue that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petitioner, by referring to proviso under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act would submit that for a declaratory decree in a consequential relief under Section 7(c), such valuation shall not be less than the value of property calculated in the manner provided by Clause (v) of this Section. As per Clause (v), in a suit for possession of land, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject matter and it is further provided that such value shall be deemed to be in case of a land which is irrigated by perennial canal, sixty rupees per acre. It is the submission of the counsel that the case of the petitioner would fall under the above-noted provision and valuation is required to be done accordingly.

6. No such submissions were made before the trial court, where the petitioner has only submitted that she is not liable to affix ad valorem court fees as the sale deed was under challenge on the ground of fraud. This submission raised on behalf of the petitioner was squarely answered in the case of Ajmer Singh (supra) and hence the direction -for the petitioner to affix the ad valorem court fees was issued.

7. Now in the revision, the petitioner is intending to set up altogether different case. The copy of the plaint has also been placed on record and would show that the challenge is to the sale deed No. 2370 dated 28.8.1991, which is stated to be a forged sale deed. Merely by terming the plaint to be a suit for declaration, the petitioner cannot be permitted to avoid affixing the ad valorem court fees. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revision jurisdiction

Dismissed.