C.R. No. 5569 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5569 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 25, 2009 Daya Nand …..Petitioner Vs. Raghbir Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant- petitioner in a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent stands dismissed. On asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the plaint. The plaintiff- respondent has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant- petitioner to handover the possession of the house mentioned in the plaint claiming that the plaintiff- respondent had C.R. No. 5569 of 2009 [2] constructed the house in 1992 and that the defendant- petitioner had been permitted to remain in possession of the property till he constructed own residential house. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff is seeking possession of the house as such the ad-valorem Court fee is required to be affixed on the value of the house. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The decree for mandatory injunction to handover the vacant possession of the house in dispute has been sought for claiming that the defendant is in occupation of the house as a licensee in a suit for mandatory injunction. The ad-valorem Court fee on the value of the property is not required to be affixed. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. However, it is clarified that in case the plea of Court fee is raised in the written statement, the trial Court will be required to adjudicate the said issue in context to the other issues to determine the status of the defendant- petitioner. Depending upon the finding and status of the defendant- petitioner, it will be open to the court to require the affixation of Court fee in accordance with the procedure of law as and when the occasion arises. September 25, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE C.R. No. 5569 of 2009 [3]