C.R.No.6521 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6521 of 2007 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Kirori Lal ... Petitioner Versus Budh Ram and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jitender K.Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee by the trial court on an application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) vide order dated 27.11.2007, has approached this court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of partition seeking decree for possession by way of partition of his 1/3rd share by meets and bounds. Case of the petitioner is that he purchased 1/9th share of double storied house jointly with Vinod Kumar, Satish and Harnarain vide sale deeds dated 30.9.1982 and 31.3.1993. Respondent No.1 vide sale deeds dated 18.11.1984 and 29.6.1988 purchased 7/36th share in the said house alongwith Vinod Kumar and Satish Kumar. Respondent No.1 is the 1 C.R.No.6521 of 2007 real father in law of the petitioner who obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers and obtained decree dated 7.5.1994 by fraud and misrepresentation. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application on 26.3.2004 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on account of deficient court fee. The plaintiff contested the application by filing reply. The trial court allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 27.11.2007 directing the petitioner to disclose the amount of sale consideration and pay ad valorem court fee accordingly. Hence this petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 had laid down the following principles relating to payment of court fees on cancellation of a deed:- i) Where the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the deed; ii) Where the non-executant, who is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share shall be required to affix fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act; iii) Where the non-executant who is not in possession seeks declaration that the deed is invalid and also claim relief of possession, is required to affix ad-valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) ( c) of the Act. Under the Proviso attached thereto, such valuation in case of property shall not be less than the value of the property 2 C.R.No.6521 of 2007 calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed decree for possession. Accordingly, he is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee as directed by the trial court, in view of the principles laid down in Suhrid Singh ’s case (supra). 6. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out for setting aside the impugned order and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, this Court vide order dated 17.12.2007 had stayed the operation of the impugned order. Accordingly, the time for payment of court-fee shall be granted by the trial Court within which the petitioner shall make good the deficiency in the court-fee. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3