THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 3082 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 23.04.2010, passed by the Vii Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1462 of 2009 in O.S. No.562 of 2006, filed by the petitioner praying to direct the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on the suit claim. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 and perused the order under revision. It is the contention of the petitioner-defendant No.1 that since the respondent-plaintiff has already sold the property and created third party rights, it cannot be said that the property is still in joint possession, and as such, the respondent-plaintiff should be directed to pay the deficit court fee. This contention of the petitioner-defendant No.1 cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming the schedule property to be joint family and ancestral property. And as noticed by the Court below, unless and until the additional issue framed by the Court, namely as to whether the petitioner-defendant No.1 is in joint possession of the suit schedule property, is answered, based on the evidence to be adduced by both the parties, it cannot be conclusively said that the respondent-plaintiff is out of possession, requiring her to pay the deficit court fee. At any rate, since the Court has ample power under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct payment of deficit fee even at the time of passing judgment, and having regard to the stand taken by the petitioner-defendant No.1 in his written statement, the Court below felt that an additional issue as to whether the suit relief is under-valued and if so, whether the court fee paid is insufficient, has to be framed, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has taken care of the interest of the petitioner-defendant No.1, and as such, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, passed by the Court below refusing to allow the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 to direct the respondent-plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on the suit claim. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th August, 2010 KSR