IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2648 of 2006 Date of Decision: 16.09.2010 Mehar Chand and others ........Petitioners Versus L.R.Anangpal Singh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. K.B.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is against the order dated 01.04.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad whereby the application (Annexure P-2) for dismissal of the suit for deficient Court fee has been dismissed. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the strength of the sale deed against the petitioner herein. One of the plea raised in the written statement relate to under valuation of the suit and Issue No.8 was framed by the Court in that respect. Even without the issue being considered, the petitioners-defendants made an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is under valued. The trial Court after seeking objection from the respondent, dismissed his application vide impugned order, holding that the suit is properly valued as the suit is for possession and the co-sharer deemed to be in possession. While disposing of the application, the trial Court also held that issue No.8 shall stand decided accordingly. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have heard Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Civil Revision No.2648 of 2006 -2- As a matter of fact, the application filed by the petitioners is misconceived. The trial Court has already framed the issue relating to the court fee. Defendants filed an application even without any determination by the Court regarding the court fee payable on the suit. Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (b) CPC is attracted only where there is determination regarding the court fee payable and the court fee is not paid despite the directions given by the Court within fixed time. No determination has taken place, the application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint is in fact pre-mature. Without going into other aspects of the issue, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 01.04.2006 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed to decide the issue framed regarding the court fee, in accordance with law. 16.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE