Civil Revision No. 3269 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3269 OF 2007 Date of Order: 27.08.2009 Ms. Madhu Sharma & another ....Petitioners Versus Indian Institute of Education ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges an order dated 26.03.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh holding that the question of court fee shall be decided at the time of final arguments. Counsel for the petitioners submits that payment of requisite court fee is a condition precedent to taking cognizance of a suit and where a party does not affix the correct court fee, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction, to allow the respondent to affix a tentative court fee of Rs.500/- and order that the question of court fee would be decided at the time of final arguments. Despite service no one is present on behalf of the respondent. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. Order 7 Rule 11 (b) & (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows:- “(b) Where the relief claimed is under valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails Civil Revision No. 3269 OF 2007 -2- to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;” A perusal of the above provisions leaves no manner of doubt that where the relief appears to be under valued a court is obliged to determine the correct court fee to be affixed. Where upon such determination, the plaintiff fails to affix the correct court fee so determined, the plaint shall be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the binding nature of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c), the trial court committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that the respondent is entitled to affix a tentative court fee. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated26.03.2007 is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the application for permission to file tentative court fee afresh, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 05.10.2009. August 27, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE