$~25. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.1219/2005 PARESH DOGRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Renu Gautam, Adv. versus DR. R.K.DOGRA AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 19.09.2016 IA No.11512/2016 (of the plaintiff for restoration of IA No.10445/2016). 1. Though there is no ground available for restoration but in the interest of justice, allowed. 2. IA No.10445/2016 is restored to its original position. 3. The application stands disposed of. IA No.10445/2016 (of the plaintiff for direction to the Registry to withdraw the demand of court fees on decree). 4. The counsel for the plaintiff/applicant has been heard. 5. The counsel for the plaintiff/applicant relying upon Roshan Singh Vs. Zile Singh AIR 1988 SC 881 states that the stamp duty /court fees demanded on the decree is not payable. 6. What has been held in relation to family settlement in the judgment cited would not apply to a decree for partition. Either the plaintiff/applicant should have rest assured on the basis of the family settlement; if the plaintiff desires a decree for partition even if in terms of family settlement, the court fees would have to be paid. 7. There is no merit in the application. Dismissed. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2016/„pp‟..