C.R.No.1543 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1543 of 2009 Date of Order: 31.1.2011 Shaffi .....Petitioner Vs. Pawan Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 30.9.2008 (P.1) passed by the learned trial Court whereby on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC made by the defendants, plaintiff-petitioner has been directed to affix ad valorem court fee. Briefly admitted facts are that the petitioner-Shaffi (plaintiff) was born to Ravi Kumar and Parveen Rani. He is alleged to have been adopted by his maternal ground-father, namely, Mohan Lal, who had only four daughters including Parveen Rani. Subsequently, Ravi Kumar, Parveen Rani and their minor daughter Rabia had unfortunately died in the Dabwali Fire Tragedy of 23.12.1995. Three claim petitions were filed by the paternal grand-mother of the petitioner before the One Man Commission appointed to determine the amount of compensation payable for the victims. Three claim petitions C.R.No.1543 of 2009 #2# related to the death of aforesaid three persons namely Ravi Kumar, Parveen Rani and Rabia. It is admitted that before One Man Commission, petitioner- Shaffi through Mohan Lal had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as applicant claiming the amount of compensation being the sole heir. Applications were dismissed vide order dated 16.1.2006. In the revision petition filed against the order dated 16.1.2006, this Court had, vide order dated 25.7.2006, permitted the petitioner-Shaffi to seek his remedy by filing a civil suit and that the learned trial Court would determine the controversy in accordance with law without being influenced by order dated 16.1.2006 passed by the Commission. Hence the present suit for declaration has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner that he is the owner in possession of the suit property whose market value is Rs.1,36,00,000/- besides claiming the amount of compensation of Rs.1,80,00,000/- determined by One Man Commission and an ex-gratia grant of Rs.3 lac granted by the Haryana Government. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no illegality in the orders passed by the learned trial Court whereby on account of liquidated amount referred, it has permitted the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee regarding the suit property. It is quite settled law that whenever a claim of liquidated sum is made, ad valorem court fee is to be paid on the same. Dismissed. January 31, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE