Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.3.2011 Sumiti Sagar ..Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh Jain and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:-Mr. Ravnish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. ( ORAL) The petitioner impugns an order dated 31.1.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala, deciding an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession of four shops and in addition prayed for a permanent injunction. The petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is under valuded for the purpose of court fee. The petitioner also averred that the property in dispute has fallen to his share in a family settlement, which, ultimately, culminated into a Civil Court decree dated 31.3.1977. Vide order dated 31.1.2011, the trial court dismissed the application by holding that as a question of title arises for adjudication, the plaint can not be rejected . The trial Court, however, Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2011 2 allowed the application in part and directed the plaintiff to afffix court fee according to the admitted value of the property, i.e., Rs. 1.50 lac. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the suit is barred by res judicata, the trial court should have rejected the plaint. It is further submitted that in the absence of any tangible pleadings disclosing a cause of action, the trial court should have allowed the application. It is further argued that as the property is worth more than Rs.20 lac, the trial Court erred in directing respondent No.1 to affix court fee on Rs.1.50 lac. only. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the suit is manifestly vexatious and without merit, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, should have been allowed and for this argument, places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as T. Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal, 1977 (4) S.C.C. 467. It is also argued that by rejecting the plea with regard to affixation of correct court fee, the trial court has, in essence, deprived the petitioner of his right to raise such a plea during the suit. I have perused the pleadings, the impugned order and find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. The application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been decided by assigning clear and cogent reasons. In the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of law, the impugned order does not call for interference. The question whether the plaintiff has any right, title or interest in the suit property or that the suit is barred by res judicata etc., have to be determined during the course of the trial. As regards the affixation of court fee, the order passed by the trial court directing the petitioner to affix court fee on the admitted value of the property does not call for interference. The judgment Civil Revision No. 1947 of 2011 3 referred to by counsel for the petitioner does not advance the petitioner's case in any manner Dismissed. 21.3.2011 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) VK JUDGE