IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 Surinder Kumar Malik (deceased) through LRs …Petitioner V/s Sonia Herbert and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Deep Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Yamuna Nagar, vide which the application preferred by the respondents-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner-plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee on the market value/collector rate of the suit property.

2. The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff (Surinder Kumar Malik) against the respondents-defendants seeking to restrain them from interfering in his ownership and actual physical possession over Plot No.13 (fully described in the plaint), situated in Guru Nanakpura Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). Mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to remove and demolish any construction made over the suit property during the pendency of the suit was also sought.

3. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff with the averment that upon coming to know about the institution of the suit, the respondents-defendants, with the help of a mason and labourers dismantled the northern boundary wall of the suit property and raised a wall against the wall on the eastern side by blocking the intervening iron gate of the plot of the petitioner-plaintiff and they also constructed one room with a tin shed in the suit property. Under the circumstances, the plaint was sought to be amended seeking restoration of possession over the said area. The said application was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-4). Pursuant to the same, amended plaint (Annexure P-5) was filed.

4. Written statement to the amended plaint (Annexure P6) was also filed.

5. Subsequently, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-7) was moved by the respondents-defendants seeking payment of ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit property since the relief of possession had been sought. Ad valorem Court fee on the claim of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.500 per day was also sought to be affixed.

6. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P- 8). Vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-9), the claim of the respondents-defendants as regards fixing of ad valorem Court fee on the claim of mesne profits was declined but it was ordered that ad valorem Court fee was required to be paid on the market value/collector rate of the suit property as the relief of possession had been sought.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court erred in ordering that ad valorem Court fee at the rate of market value/collector rate was required to be affixed. Learned counsel has referred to the impugned order and has submitted that the same is not sustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma @ another, 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 345.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. Concededly, as per the own case of the petitioner, the respondents-defendants took over possession of a part of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and under the circumstances, the plaint was amended and the relief of possession was sought. While allowing the claim of the respondents-defendants that ad valorem Court fee was payable according to the value of the property/collector rate, the tri