Civil Revision No.1157 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1157 of 2008 Date of Decision:11.05.2009 Savinder Kaur ....petitioner Versus Amar Iqbal & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Raman B.Garg,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 25.01.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Tohana, whereby the application filed by the defendants/respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit for want of proper court fee was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to make up the deficiency of the court fee within a period of one month. Challenging the aforesaid order, in this revision petition,it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner has filed a simple suit for declaration without any consequential relief of possession of the property and therefore he was not liable to pay the ad valorem court fee. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 25.02.2008 this Court had directed that proceedings before the trial Court in the suit may continue but operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. Civil Revision No.1157 of 2008 2 It is not disputed that the trial court has already framed issues in this suit on 25.08.2008. Issue No.9 is as follows: “ Whether suit is bad for want of proper court fee? OPD” In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that let the parties take all legal objections with regard to payment of court fee on the plaint before the trial Court. Since the trial Court has already framed issues, I deem it appropriate that the parties may raise all objections in this regard before the trial Court and the same shall be decided while deciding the aforesaid issue between the parties. However, it is made clear that any expression given in the impugned order will not come in the way of any of the parties while deciding the issue No.9 by the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, revision petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 11.05.2009 neenu