Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009 Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Satpal and another ....Petitioners versus Radhey Shyam and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 and 2 None for the remaining respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 16.9.2009, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed suit against the petitioners and proforma respondents no. 3 to 5 vide plaint, Annexure P/2, alleging that plaintiffs and defendants are co-sharers in the suit property and the plaintiffs are owners and in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of half share. The plaintiffs pleaded that they do not want to keep the suit property Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009 -2- joint. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought relief of joint possession of the suit property to the extent of half share and also sought partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and also sought permanent injunction. Defendants moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short, CPC) for rejection of the plaint on two grounds. It was alleged that the plaintiffs have not explained as to how they have half share in the suit property. Secondly, the plaintiffs have not paid ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property which is not less than Rs 20 lacs. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 observed that the plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint that they are owners and in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of half share. In reply to the application, the plaintiffs have also explained that originally Shanti Devi was owner of the suit property and after her death it devolved upon her legal heirs Krishana Devi and Luxmi Devi who gifted the same to plaintiff no. 2 - Ravinder Kaur and as such plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property to the extent of half share. The trial court observed that the plaint cannot be rejected when the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are joint owners and in possession of the suit property to the extent of half share but the plaintiffs were allowed to amend the pleadings to plead as to how they are owners of the half share in the suit property as pleaded in the reply to the application. As regards valuation, the trial court observed that issue regarding valuation of the suit can be framed and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009 -3- case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that plaintiffs have not explained in the plaint as to how they are owners and in joint possession of the suit property. However, as rightly observed by the trial court, the plaint cannot be rejected merely on this ground under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners and in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of half share. Moreover, the plaintiffs have clarified their position in reply to the application as to how they became owners of the half share of the suit property. Even in jamabandi, Shanti Devi has been recorded as owner of the suit property and in the remarks column mention has been made of mutation of inheritance in favour of different persons including plaintiff no. 1 and defendants and Krishana Devi and Luxmi Devi. Thus, even according to the jamabandi plaintiff no. 1 has share in the suit property. Plaintiff no. 2 claims to have got share in the suit property by way of gift from Luxmi Devi and Krishana Devi and entry to this effect has also been made in remarks column of jamabandi. Consequently, the plaintiffs have been rightly allowed to amend the plaint to this effect. However, the plaintiffs should have been subjected to costs for making amendment in the plaint to this effect as they did not plead these facts in the original plaint. Accordingly, plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 are subjected to Rs 2000/- as costs for the aforesaid amendment in the plaint. As regards valuation, the trial court has rightly observed that issue of valuation of court fee can be decided only after framing of issue and recording of evidence. Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009 -4- In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of by directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs 2000/- as costs to the defendants for amendment of the plaint as allowed by the trial court. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 04, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'