Civil Revision No.4462 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4462 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:23.08.2011 Rishi Raj ......Petitioner Versus Jai Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Rishi Raj son of Kanwar Singh-petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against Jai Singh son of Lajja Ram-respondent-defendant(for short “the defendant”). 2. In the wake of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fees on the sale consideration, by way of impugned order dated 04.12.2010. Since, the plaintiff did not pay the requisite court fees within the stipulated period, so, the trial Court rejected his plaint, by virtue of impugned order dated 06.06.2011. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned decision of the trial Court and preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the impugned order on merits and prayed that the present revision Civil Revision No.4462 of 2011 2 petition be also decided in the same terms of the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4475 of 2011. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-plaintiff has also filed the similar suit, in which similar impugned orders were passed. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No.4475 of 2011, which was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Arvind Kumar, J.), by means of order dated 26.07.2011, the operative part of which is, as under:- “Heard. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff does not press order dated 4.12.2010 but only prays that further one month's time be given to the plaintiff for deposit of the court-fee. Plaintiff may suffer an irreparable loss if interference in the impugned order is not made. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and one month's time is granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to deposit the court-fee.” 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, to me, justice would be sub-served, if the instant revision petition is also decided in the same terms of the order dated 26.07.2011 of this Court, rendered in Civil Revision No.4475 of 2011. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 06.06.2011 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to restore the suit, subject to the deposit of ad valorem court fees by the petitioner-plaintiff, within a period of one and a half months. August 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE