Civil Revision No.2253 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2253 of 2009 Date of Decision:24.04.2009 Amarnath ....petitioner Versus Sohan Lal & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Abhishek Arora,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. In this revision petition, the petitioner has prayed that a direction be given to the District Judge, Mansa to decide his application dated 10.03.2009(Annexure P-4) vide which the petitioner has prayed that appellant be directed to affix the deficiency of Court fee on the memo of appeal which is pending before him According to the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the petitioner for possession by way of partition and the market value of the property in dispute was about Rs.10 lacs and on that the plaintiff-respondent was required to affix ad valorem court fee. Petitioner filed an application directing the plaintiff-appellant to make good the deficiency in Court fee. However, this application was ordered to be heard along with the main case and in spite of the said order while passing the decree, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2007 did not decide the same. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed, against which he preferred Civil Revision No.2253 of 2009 2 an appeal which is pending before the learned District Judge, Mansa. In that appeal also, the plaintiff-respondent had not affixed the ad valorem Court fee and therefore the petitioner moved the present application (Annexure P-4) praying therein that plaintiff-respondent be directed to affix the ad valorem court fee. It is the grouse of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that he has filed this application on 10.03.2009 the same has not been decided and therefore this Court under its supervisory powers should exercise its authority and direct the court to decide the application of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-6) shows that vide order dated 31.03.2009 the main appeal as well as application of the petitioner was listed for hearing on 20.04.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that on 20.04.2009 the petitioner had sought adjournment in the Court of District Judge, Mansa on the ground that they have filed the present revision petition in this Court seeking direction to decide the application. Thus, on one hand, the petitioner is seeking direction of this court to the District Judge, Mansa for deciding his application dated 10.03.2009 and on the other hand when this application was listed along with the appeal on 20.04.2009, the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that he had filed revision petition before this Court. Not only this, from the record of the case, I find that the trial Court had framed a specific issue as issue No.3 to the following effect: “Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD" The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant/petitioner. A perusal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 06.06.2007 attached as Annexure P-3 with this revision petition, clearly establishes that this issue was not pressed at the time of Civil Revision No.2253 of 2009 3 arguments by the defendant-petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition is devoid of any merit. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 24.04.2009 neenu