CR No.5860 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5860 of 2006 Date of decision: 3.2.2009 Kartar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Jarnail Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the order dated 23.9.2006 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur whereby his application to direct the plaintiff-respondents to affix ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit has been dismissed with the observation that an issue with regard to the proper payment of court fee has already been framed by the Court and even at the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiff can be called upon to pay the requisite court fee, if any. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affixation of requisite court fee is a condition precedent and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, as the suit cannot proceed unless the requisite court fee is affixed on the value of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Lagwal v. Shri Ram Ditta Lagwal and others 1999(1) CCC 655 (Delhi) in support of his case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner is for CR No.5860 of 2006 2 directing the plaintiff to affix the ad valorem court fee whereas according to the plaintiff ad valorem court fee is not required to be affixed and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, a specific issue in this regard has been framed by the Court and while passing the impugned order, the Court has specifically mentioned that in case the court fee is required to be affixed, the plaintiff can be asked about affixation of court fee on the conclusion of the trial. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant as far as the same has been passed in a case where an application was made under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint for want of proper court fee. There is no dispute with regard to the provisions of law as mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) CPC that a plaint can be rejected if the relevant claim is under valued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to show the correct valuation, fails to do so. In this case, there is no such situation, rather the Court has observed that the plaintiff can be asked to affix the court fee at an appropriate time. I find no merit. Dismissed. February 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE