IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2785 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Rajdeep Singh …Petitioner Versus Sonia Rani and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Alok Singh, J. Defendant – petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, whereby application moved by the defendant for issuing direction to the C.R. No. 2785 of 2010 plaintiff to fix the advalorem court fee on the relief of possession was declined. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff – respondent herein filed a civil suit being suit No.1224 of 07.12.2004 in the Trial Court for seeking relief of possession of a residential building situated in Gobind Colony, Barnala, and also challenging the Will dated 30.12.1996 purporting to have been executed by Naranjan Kaur in favour of defendant no.1, and further challenging the sale deed dated 15.06.2001 in respect of residential building in favour of defendant no.2 by defendant no.1. In a suit filed by the plaintiff, defendant has moved an application saying since plaintiff is not in possession and is claiming possession, hence, plaintiff has to pay advalorem court fee for the relief of possession. Application for the defendant was rejected by the impugned order by observing that since plaintiff was not party to the Will and sale deed in question, hence, he is not supposed to pay advalorem court fee. Section 7(v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 reads as under:- “For possession of land, houses and garden; - (v) In suits for possesson of land, houses and gardens – according to the value of the subject – matter;……” 2 C.R. No. 2785 of 2010 As per Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, in a suit for possession of house, court fee payable is according to the value of the subject matter. In the present case, plaintiff has claiming possession over the residential house, hence, in the opinion of this Court, he is bound to pay advalorem court fee on the market value of the building in question. Had it been a simplicitor case of declaring the impugned sale deed void, plaintiff was not required to pay advalorem court fee thereon since plaintiff was not party to the sale deed, however, fact remains that plaintiff is out of possession and his main relief is for recovery of the possession by ignoring the sale deed, hence, the present suit will fall within the category of suit for possession on which he has to pay advalorem court fee in accordance with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. Petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 24.09.2010 for further direction. The learned Trial Court shall decide the question of market value of the property and shall grant reasonable time to the plaintiff to make good deficient court fee. September 10, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3