IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2223 of 2004 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Darshan Kumar ........Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 14.02.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dabwali whereby an application filed by the defendants-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the value of the suit property. None of the parties have chosen to appear in this case. I have perused the impugned order. In the suit filed for declaration challenging the will dated 22.11.1988 duly registered with the Sub Registrar allegedly obtained by fraud, undue influence etc. and possession of the part of the property as also for grant of permanent injunction, defendants made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint contending therein that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the value of the suit property. The trial Court while considering this application formulated an opinion that the plaintiff is liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee and thus directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court fee. The impugned order is totally illegally and invalid as also against the spirit of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It may be useful to briefly notice the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the rejection of the plaint under the situations enumerated therein. One of the condition regarding the Court fee is Clause (b) where the relief claimed is under valued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court fails to correct the value Civil Revision No.2223 of 2004 -2- within the time fixed by the Court, the plaint is liable to be rejected. In the present case, there was no such determination by the Court regarding the evaluation of the suit. Provisions of Clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order 7 are applicable where there is an adjudication by the Court and a direction has been issued to correct the value and pay the Court fee and on default plaint can be rejected. This provision cannot be utilized for determination of the valuation of the suit. The application filed was in fact totally mis-conceived. The question regarding the appropriate value to be fixed on the relief claimed should have been decided on the basis of an issue to be framed in this suit, if there is such plea in the written statement. The trial Court, however, in complete ignorance of the provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC proceeded to decide the application and directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court fee, which is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.02.2004 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the respondents-defendants is hereby dismissed. It is, however, observed that the trial Court may frame an issue if any plea regarding the deficit Court fee has been raised in the written statement and the said issue will be decided in accordance with law. 13.10.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE