Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2005 Date of decision: 04.08.2009. Amit Shah and another ....Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh Samra ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2005 titled Amit Shah and another Vs. Amarjit Singh Samra and Civil Revision No. 3648 of 2005 titled Amit Shah and another Vs. Partap Singh Bajwa, as common questions of law and fact are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2005. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.2004, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The petitioner herein moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, for non-payment of ad valorem court Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2005 -2- fee. The learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application, by holding, that the plaintiff/respondent had sufficiently paid the court fee of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), and in case the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to higher amount, in that event, the plaintiff could be asked to make good the deficiency of court fee, before passing of the judgment and decree. The application was ordered to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in M/s Arjan Motors vs. Girdhara Singh and others, 1978 Revenue Law Reporter 199 has been pleased to lay down, that the revision by the defendant on the question that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff, is not competent. The order passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench reads as under: - “The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the latest judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, the question of court-fee cannot be agitated by his clients in this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.” Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends, that the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench is not applicable to the present case, as this revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has wide power of superintendence over the sub- ordinate Courts and tribunals, and the power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no dispute with the contention raised by the Civil Revision No. 3647 of 2005 -3- learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are much wider than one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When on a particular point, the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Full Bench is there, holding that revision against an order, dismissing the application for rejection of plaint for want of proper court fee is not maintainable, the equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked to overcome settled law. Dismissed as not competent. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 04, 2009 R.S.