p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.207 of 2025 Mustak Mallik & others …. Petitioners Mr. A. Alam, Advocate -Versus- Sanjib Kumar Subudhi & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 19.02.2026 I.A. No.621 of 2025 06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant I.A. is filed seeking recall of the Court’s order dated 25thMarch, 2025 in the CMP on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties would submit that the petitioners are liable to pay ad valorem court fee considering the reliefs sought for apart from declaration demanded in respect of the case land morefully described under Schedule-B of the plaint. But the direction of the learned court below was not complied with and thereafter, the CMP was filed leading to be passing of the order dated 5th March, 2025 with the plea that the petitioners are not liable to pay such court fee since it is a case of declaration simpliciter. The further submission is that the petitioners are not in possession of the case land and since, there is a declaration sought for in respect of the sale deed dated 28th July, 2021 p. 2 executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the Record of Right has been prepared alleged to be invalid, illegal and nonest in the eye of law followed by consequential relief towards delivery of its possession, the petitioners are to pay ad valorem court fee and therefore, the order in the CMP dated 25th March, 2025 is required to be recalled. 4. Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are in possession, hence, they are not liable to pay any ad valorem court fee and refers to the decision of the Apex Court earlier cited at the time of hearing and disposal of the CMP. The submission is that in view of the law cited in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vrs. Randhir Singh & others (2010) 3 S.C.R. 1121, the petitioners are only entitled to pay fixed court fee as per Article 17(iii) Second schedule of the Court Fees Act. In reply to above, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petitioners are not the executants and not even in possession of the case land and seek not only the declaration that the sale deed as invalid and also the Record of Right but has pleaded consequential relief in respect thereof, hence, by the same decision (supra), they are liable to pay ad valorem court fee. 5. Perused the plaint, a copy of which is at Annexure-5. Referring to the plaint, it is submitted by Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of the case land. But considering the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties and on a bare reading of the plaint i.e. Annexure-5, the Court does not p. 3 find anywhere regarding possession pleaded by the petitioners in respect of the case land. Considering the relief sought for, which includes recovery of possession apart from declaration of the sale deed as null and void, regard being had to the decision in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioners are liable to pay the ad valorem court fee, hence, the learned court below demanding the same did not commit any wrong or illegality. In other words, the impugned order dated 9th May, 2024 as at Annexure-8 in C.S. No.318 of 2023 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nayagarh suffers from no legal infirmity. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, I.A. stands allowed. Consequently, the order dated 25th March, 2025 in the CMP is hereby recalled. 8. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer