IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (126 Date of Decision:-29.10.2025 ASHWANI KUMAR … Petitioner Versus RAJNI BALA AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner ****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

The present civil revision petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted by the petitioner to assail the order dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalalabad (West), whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of the requisite court fee.

2. The petitioner has contended that, in view of the provisions contained in Section 7(v)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff was mandatorily required to affix ad-valorem court fee, the relief sought being one for possession of the suit property. It is urged that the learned Civil Judge, while passing the impugned order, failed to advert to or adjudicate upon this material issue, thereby rendering the order legally unsustainable.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner with due deliberation and have undertaken a comprehensive and critical scrutiny of the paper book, pleadings, and documents placed on record to appreciate the contours of the controversy in their proper legal perspective.

4. In the application preferred by the petitioner, it has been categorically averred that the plaintiff, having sought the relief of possession, was mandatorily required to affix ad-valorem court fee commensurate with the market value of the suit property, estimated at ₹

approximately 35 lakhs. It was further contended that, in the absence of due compliance with the mandatory fiscal requirement, the suit was not maintainable in law. The learned Civil Judge, however, proceeded to dismiss the said application, assigning reasons encapsulated in paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order, which is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:-

6. “This Court finds no merits in the present application as it is alleged by the applicants/defendants that Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees & Registration Fees Act, 1870 provides that in suit declaratory decree with consequential reliefs, the court fees shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.

Therefore, not computed as per the market value of the property. In this regard, the relevant statutory provision is reproduced as under:-

The Court Fees & Registration Fees Act, 1870:-

7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits;- The amount of the fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:-

For a declaratory decree and consequential relief- (c) to obtain a declaratory or order, where consequential relief is prayed, for an injunction.

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

In the light of afore-mentioned statutory provision, the plaintiff respondent has affixed proper Court fee in the present suit for declaration and the plaintiff is not liable to pay the court fees as per the value of the property involved in the alleged case.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, invoking the mandate enshrined under Section 7(v)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, has strenuously urged that the valuation of the suit, being one for possession of immovable property, necessarily attracts the requirement of ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the property in question. In aid of this submission, he has drawn the Court’s attention to the textual import and legislative intent underlying the said provision, which is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference and proper appreciation:-

"7. Computation of fees p