C.R.No.5580 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5580 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Shanti Devi ... Petitioner Versus Smt.Kanta and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: None. 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 21.7.2009, has approached this court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of partition of land in dispute to the extent of 3/8 share. The respondent-defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non- payment of ad valorem court fee. The petitioner contested the application by filing reply. The trial court allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 21.7.2009 holding that the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee. Hence this petition. 3. After going through the averments in the petitioner and 1 C.R.No.5580 of 2009 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 calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed suit for possession by way of partition of land in dispute. Accordingly, she 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 10.11.2009 had stayed the operation of the impugned order. 2 C.R.No.5580 of 2009 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