IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5181 of 2010 Date of Decision : 18.8.2010 Sanjeev Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2010 vide which his prayer for permitting him to sue as a pauper has been declined and he has been directed to pay the ad-valorem court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. 2010(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 564 to contend that it was a co-parcenery property and he was not challenging the sale deed and consequently he could not be asked to pay the ad-valorem court fee. He, however, has no sound argument to raise in so far as his plea regarding his status as a pauper has been declined. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order in so far as the observation regarding his being a pauper is concerned. He has land to C.R.No.5181 of 2010 -2- his credit and the observation of the trial court is that he is financially sound to satisfy the deposit of court fee. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner qua this aspect of the matter is declined. In so far as the second aspect is concerned, the petitioner shall affix the court fee which shall be open to scrutiny of the court and the objections of the respondent if any and the trial court shall thus look into this afresh. The observation qua court fee in the impugned order is set aside. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 18.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss