C.R.No.2333 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2333 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Jage Ram ... Petitioner Versus Smt.Indira Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee on the amount of Rs.72000/- and on the value of 10 kanals of land at Collector rate by the trial court on an application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) vide order dated 6.2.2008, has approached this court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of agricultural land measuring 11 kanals 5 marlas i.e. 1/24 share of land measuring 269 kanal 19 Marla comprised in Khewat No.8 Khata No.8 to 16 situated in the revenue estate of village Todikheri Tehsil Safidon and the alleged release deed No.282 of 17.5.2002 is null and void ab initio 1 C.R.No.2333 of 2008 and also a decree for possession of land measuring 10 kanals out of the aforesaid land alongwith decree for mesne profits. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement. Alongwith the written statement, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint on the ground of non payment of proper court fee as per the relief claimed in the plaint. The trial court allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to affix ad-valorem court fee on the plaint. Hence this revision petition. 3. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order. 4. After going through the averments made in the petition and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 had laid down the following principles relating to payment of court fees on cancellation of a deed:- i) Where the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the deed; ii) Where the non-executant, who is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share shall be required to affix fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act; iii) Where the non-executant who is not in possession seeks declaration that the deed is invalid and also claim relief of possession, is required to affix ad-valorem Court 2 C.R.No.2333 of 2008 fee as provided under Section 7(iv) ( c) of the Act. Under the Proviso attached thereto, such valuation in case of property shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. 6. In the present case, the trial court has directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fee on Rs.72000/- which has been claimed by him as mesne profits of Rs.18,000/- per acre per year besides Collector rate of 10 kanals of land in respect of which release deed has been challenged and possession has been claimed. 7. In view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh’s case (supra), no ground for interference is made out for setting aside the impugned order and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, this Court vide order dated 23.4.2008 had stayed the operation of the impugned order. Accordingly, the time for payment of court-fee shall be granted by the trial Court within which the petitioner shall make good the deficiency in the court-fee. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3