IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1366 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.3.2009 Yash Pal ....Petitioner Versus Arjun Dass @ Arjun Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated September 8, 2008, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that requisite Court fee has not paid, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the respondent/plaintiff was claiming possession of the property, it was incumbent upon him to pay the requisite court fee. However, the same having not been paid, the plaint was liable to be rejected. Even in the suit initially filed the claim was sought to be made for possession of the property. The plaint filed by the petitioner was cleverly drafted. However, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. Learned Court below has noticed that the suit initially filed by the respondent/plaintiff was amended with the pleadings that the possession of the property was taken from him during the pendency of the suit. The fact as to whether initially the respondent/plaintiff was out of the possession of the property or the same was taken during the pendency of the suit is yet to be gone into and appreciated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and no final opinion could be expressed at this stage, where both the parties were making claim against each other. Keeping these facts in view, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 10.3.2009 JUDGE Reema