C.R.No.95 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.95 of 2009. Decided on: December 07, 2009. Kulwant Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Surjeet Kaur and others . .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Binderjit Singh Advocate, for Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kuldip Khandelwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 02.12.2008, while allowing the application of the defendant-respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaintiff has been directed to affix ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the property. A perusal of the contents of the plaint indicates that . . . 1 C.R.No.95 of 2009 the plaintiff claims himself to be a co-sharer and has sought a decree for partition. No doubt he has also prayed for possession being not in possession but the share claimed by the plaintiff-appellant is half share in shop mentioned in heading A and half share in House mentioned in heading B. The property in dispute was allegedly owned by Raja Singh, the predecessor-in-interest, of the parties. The suit of the plaintiff is a suit for possession by way of partition. However, the share of the plaintiff is to be determined by a preliminary decree and he would be entitled to partition and possession of the property by virtue of a final decree passed subsequently. Since the rights are claimed in the capacity as a co- sharer having inherited the property from common ancestors, ad valorem court fee is not payable. The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.12.2008, is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 23.01.2010, for further proceedings in accordance with law. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 07, 2009. rka . . . 2