IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.58 of 2005 KRISHNA BIHARI JAISWAL & ORS Versus ARUN KUMAR JAISWAL & ORS ----------- 16 10.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the opposite parties . Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order rejecting the application of the defendant petitioner dated 2.6.2003 for a direction to the plaintiff, opposite party to deposit Ad valorem Court fee, contends that as a matter of fact, the suit property has already been made subject matter of two earlier partition suit, and therefore, when these three suits were filed, the plaintiffs, opposite parties were required to deposit the Ad valorem Court fee. In this context, the counsel for the petitioners, referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Amarendra Nath Verma and Ors. Vs. Bimleshwar Nath Verma and Ors. AIR 1999 Patna page 10 On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties, submit that the present suit is out and out a suit for partition and no relief has been sought for declaring the decree of the partition suit to be void or inoperative. He has further sought to explain that the judgment of this court in Amarendra Nath Verma (supra) will not be applicable because there it was an admitted case that in the plaint apart from the relief of partition a separate relief for setting aside the compromise the decree was also sought. Having considered, the rival submissions at the Bar this Court is of the view that as in the plaint no relief has been sought 2 for declaration the title and the suit is strictly confined to partition. Thus there would be no requirement of depositing the Ad valorem Court fee. Consequently, the order of the Court below rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for directing the plaintiff to deposit Ad valorem Court fee came to be rightly rejected by the Court below by the impugned order. This Court does not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order. Consequently, this revision application is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that at least this must be observed by this Court that if the plaintiff, opposite party in future would seek any declaration to the right, title in respect of any property of the suit , the Court below will be required to frame an issue and thereafter also determine the requirement of payment of ad-valorem court fee. In the opinion of this Court such prayer of the petitioner is wholly misconceived in as much the court below in expected to take care of any such future exigencies and infact it would be always, open for the petitioner to raise the issue of Ad valorem Court fee if the plaintiff, opposite party seeks .any declaration of right and title to the suit property. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)