CR No.6146 of 2004 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Surinder Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. Pawan Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.SM Sharma, Advocate,for the petitioner. None for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This revision is directed against the order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, whereby the learned trial Court disposed of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed the plaintiff-petitioner herein to fix the ad valorem Court as per the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the trial Court. He filed a suit for declaration against the defendants. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the Court fee affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein on the suit. The trial Court has decided the said application vide the impugned order and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the ad valorem Court fee. CR No.6146 of 2004 : 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order is liable to set aside on the simple ground that Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is attracted only where there is already determination regarding the Court fee and the party after the said determination fails to pay the Court fee within the time prescribed by the Court. 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; (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; CR No.6146 of 2004 : 3 (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.” 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 CR No.6146 of 2004 : 4 framed and after the same is decided and the Court is of the opinion that the plaint is undervalued, can direct the plaintiff 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. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.12.2009. 21.10.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE