CR No.760 of 2004 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 13.10.2009 Avatar Singh and others Vs. Kesar Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, whereby the application filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of the sale consideration within one month failing which the plaint has to be rejected. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration seeking ownership and joint possession as also declaring the sale deed as null and void. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid the ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed sought to be annulled. The Court below vide the impugned order while holding that the ad valorem Court is payable has directed the plaintiffs-petitioners herein CR No.760 of 2004 : 2 to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed within one month from the date of the passing of the order, failing which the plaint of the plaintiffs shall be rejected. The parties have chosen not to appear. I have carefully gone through the impugned order. The defendants on appearance filed the application in question for rejection of the plaint. The question of payment of Court fee could be determined in accordance with law. Admittedly, no issue regarding the deficient Court fee has been framed. Merely on the application of the defendants, the trial Court has directed payment of ad valorem Court fee and issued directions to deposit the same, failing which a direction has been issued for rejection of the plaint. As a matter of fact, the application filed by the defendants itself is not maintainable. Relevant extract of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced hereunder:- “ 11. Rejection of plaint- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (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 to do so; CR No.760 of 2004 : 3 (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; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9, provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and the refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” CR No.760 of 2004 : 4 The aforesaid provisions provide for rejection of the plaint 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 to do so. In the present case, the question of determination of the Court fee was first to be decided. The question of payment of Court fee should have been decided after framing of appropriate issue if the defendants have taken any such plea in the written statement. Such questions could not and should not have been decided merely on the application. It is only when appropriate issue is framed and after the same is decided and the Court is of the opinion that the plaint is undervalued, can direct the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee and it is that stage that provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are attracted. The impugned order has been passed without framing of any issues on the question of payment of ad valorem court fee. The same is not sustainable in law. In view of the above, present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to frame issue regarding the Court fee if such a plea is raised in the written statement and determine the same in accordance with law. No costs. 13.10.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO