Civil Revision No.5354 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5354 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:-05.09.2011 Narender & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus Aditya Partap Singh & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Petitioners. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Defendant nos.2 to 5/petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 19.02.2011(P-2) whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for directing the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee has been dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that since the plaintiff is seeking restoration of the possession and permanent injunction, ad valorem Court fee on the value of the sale deeds executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the petitioner is to be affixed. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this submission. It is apparent that the plaintiff has sought declaration of his rights in the coparcenary property being a coparcener and as a consequence declaration that the sale deed executed by their father- Civil Revision No.5354 of 2011(O&M) #2# defendant no.1 in favour of the petitioners/defendants is not binding on their rights. The possession sought is for defendant no.1-father and not for the plaintiff himself. It is further apparent that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed. Thus in my considered opinion, learned Trial Court in view of the settled law laid down in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. 2010(2) LJR 331 Supreme Court & Ram Avtar Vs. Subash Chand Aggarwal 2007(2) Law Herald 1583 P&H has rightly dismissed the application. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 05, 2011 Vinay