CR No. 485 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.485 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.07.2009 Manga Singh & Another ... Appellants VERSUS Kewal Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA. Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2008, passed by the learned trial Court, allowing an application moved by the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, for rejecting the plaint for want of ad valorem court fee. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are the co-owners and in joint possession as co-parceners in the ancestral and joint Hindu family land/property situated at village Chiheru, Tehsil Phagwara, as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03. Declaration qua the other property like the house was also claimed. The CR No. 485 of 2009 -2- plaintiffs/petitioners also challenged the sale deed said to have been executed by their grand-father to be without legal necessity as also the Will executed by the grand-father in favour of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The learned trial Court was pleased to allow the application and direct the plaintiffs/petitioners herein to affix ad valorem court fee on the sale deed by 10th December, 2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not party to the sale deed and were claiming their co-parcenary rights in the ancestral property. Therefore, no ad valorem court fee was payable. However, in the present case, the petitioners have paid ad valorem court fee for possession of the land in dispute under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. The ad valorem court fee as per amendment of Punjab & Haryana has to be calculated as per Clause-(v) of Section 7. That Clause-(v) stipulates ad valorem court fee to be 10 times the land revenue. The petitioners have, in fact, paid the court fee by assessing the value at 10 times the land revenue qua the land in dispute. This view finds support from the judgment of this Court in case of Ajmer Singh etc. V/s Behal Singh etc., 1975, Current Law Journal, 391, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under: - "The present suit is a suit for possession of agricultural land. It is not disputed that the suit land is permanently assessed to land revenue. As the suit is covered by the provisions of section (iv)(c) of the Act, so according to the second proviso added to it, the valuation for purposes of Court fee has to be assessed in view of section 7(v) of the said Act, which will be ten times of the land revenue. In Gurdial Singh's case (supra), it was held that in cases CR No. 485 of 2009 -3- which were covered by section 7(iv) (c) of the Act, Court fee had to be paid at ten times the land revenue assessed on the land. This view was further endorsed in Narain Singh Vs. Sher Singh and others (supra). The correct position, therefore, is that the valuation for purposes of Court fee in the instant case has to be assessed according to section 7 (v) of the Act, and as the land in dispute in permanently assessed to land, the Court fee has to be paid at ten times the land revenue of the land." In view of the law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the ad valorem court fee was not paid to entertain the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC, moved by the respondents/defendants. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application moved by the respondent/defendants is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (VINOD K.SHARMA) JUDGE July 17, 2009 shamsher