Civil Revision No.7432 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7432 of 2011 Date of Decision : 02.12.2011 Sajjan Singh .......Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 28.09.2011, of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar, whereby in view of the Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the petitioner has been directed to affix the ad valorem Court Fee. 2. Sajjan Singh, plaintiff, filed civil suit for declaration and possession by way of partition and for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhajjar. The plaintiff alleged that he is the owner-in-possession of 17/124th share in the agricultural land measuring 4 kanals 6 marlas which comes to 0 kanals 17 marlas. He has constructed a room over the said land. He is the owner along 1 Civil Revision No.7432 of 2011 with the defendants. The plaintiff/petitioner is seeking 10 feet wide path for ingress and egress. Thus, through the civil suit, he is seeking relief of declaration, partition and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has affixed a fixed Court fee of `75/- on the plaint, by assessing the value of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at `550/- Para No.9 of the plaint (Annexure P1) reads as under:- “9. That the value of the court fees for the purpose of jurisdiction is `550/-, but being the suit for declaration and partition and permanent injunction, a fixed Court fee of `75/- has been affixed.” 3. Shaukat Ali-defendant No.4 contested the suit by filing written-statement (Annexure P2). While replying to para 9 of the plaint, the reply of the defendant is as under:- “Para No.9: Wrong and denied as alleged. The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is `28730/- & 550/- and not `550/- and value of the suit for purpose of court fee is `28420/- not `75/-. The plaintiff has no paid proper court fee. The prayer clause is also wrong and denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of relief prayed.” In additional pleas also, the defendant pleaded that the suit is bad for want of proper Court fee, so, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further alleged that proper Court fee to be paid by the plaintiff is `28,420/- but the plaintiff has paid only `75/-. 2 Civil Revision No.7432 of 2011 4. The answering defendant also filed an application for rejection of the plaint, the contents of which read as under:- “1. That the plaintiff has neither properly valued the relief claimed nor paid proper court fee. The proper court fee to be paid by the plaintiff is `28,420/- not `75/- as paid by the plaintiff, so, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is, therefore, prayed that the plaint may please be rejected.” 5. Vide impugned order dated 28.09.2011, the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., held that the suit is deficient in Court fee, but keeping in view the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Civil Judge granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of Court fee for affixing the ad valorem Court fee on the plaint. 6. Sajjan Singh, plaintiff challenged the order in this revision petition. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Civil Revision Nos.3500 of 2010, 7751 of 2009 and 2293 of 2010 and argued that the fixed Court fee has been correctly affixed on the plaint and the order dated 28.09.2011 is legally incorrect. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 9. So far as giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in Court is concerned, recently, Hon’ble the Apex 3 Civil Revision No.7432 of 2011 Court in PK Palanisamy Vs. N Arumugham and another, 2009(9) SCC 173, it has been held that:- “It, however, does not mean that whenever a plaint is presented with deficit court fee, the same has to be rejected outrightly. Section 149 of the Code provides for the court’s power to extend the period. It reads as under: “149. Power to make up deficiency of Court-fees. – Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any documents by the law for the time being in force relating to court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such feel is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance.” To grant an opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to affix the Court fee, that order is justified. The plaintiff should have no grouse about it. 10. The next point arises for consideration is as to what Court fee is payable on the plaint on the relief sought by the plaintiff. 11. Section 12 of the Court Fees’ Act, 1870 reads as under:- “12. Decision of questions as to valuation.- (i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this Chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal, shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit.” 4 Civil Revision No.7432 of 2011 12. The learned trial Court has rightly assessed the Court fee to be paid. Court fee is the matter between the State and Suitor. The defendant cannot urge the Court to reject the plaint on the ground of deficiency of Court fee alone. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction as would require interference by this Court, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 02.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 5