C. R. No. 4243 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4243 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 12, 2010 Surjit Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. Tarsem Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Surjit Kaur plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 04.05.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur, thereby directing the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee on market value of the suit house. Petitioner has filed suit seeking declaration that she is owner in joint possession of 43 kanals 18½ marlas land being half share of 87 kanals 17 marlas land and also of same share in the house described in the plaint. Plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 are sisters of defendant no.1. The C. R. No. 4243 of 2010 2 plaintiff has also claimed alternative relief of joint possession of the suit land and suit house. The plaintiff has also claimed permanent injunction. Defendant no.1 moved application for directing the plaintiff to affix ad-valorem court fee. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is co-sharer in the suit property and is therefore not required to pay ad-valorem court fee, as the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking possession of her own share in the suit property. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner-plaintiff, while appearing in the witness-box, admitted that she is not in possession of any part of the suit property. She has also stated that market value of the suit house is Rs.25 lacs to Rs.30 lacs. Since the petitioner-plaintiff is completely out of possession of the suit house, she has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value thereof, as stipulated by Section 7 (v) (e) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because the statutory provision aforesaid is very unambiguous and clear in language. The petitioner has herself admitted that she is out of possession of the suit house. In the plaint, she has claimed the alternative relief of joint possession of suit land and suit house to the extent of half share. C. R. No. 4243 of 2010 3 Consequently, she has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit house to the extent of the share claimed by her. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 12, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE