IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-5082-2022(O&M)

Date of decision : 06.11.2025 Prem Lata and others ... Petitioners Versus Rudar Partap Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Sunil Kumar Mallan, Advocate and Mr.Robin Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.R.S. Chauan, Advocate for the respondents.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Pathankot, vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the respondents for issuance of direction to the plaintiffs to pay the requisite ad-valorem court fee on the plaint was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners in the plaint have specifically stated that they are in possession of the suit property and have further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs. It is submitted that even in paragraph 4 sub clause (c) as well as in paragraph 8, the petitioners have specifically stated that they are in possession of the suit property. It is argued that it is only as a matter of abundant precaution that they have sought the alternative relief of possession and in the said circumstances, the petitioners are not required to pay ad-valorem court fee as has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hukam Singh vs. Sunder and others reported as 2010(4) PLR 158. It is argued that at any rate, substantial suit land is an agriculture land and thus, in view of the provisions of Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the Court fee which is payable would not be ad-valorem court fee but would be dependent upon the land revenue and the petitioners have already affixed the court fee as 10 times land revenue for alternative relief of possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further in support of his arguments referred to the judgment of this Court dated 21.03.2025 passed in CR-5142-2024 titled as Ravinder Kumar Modi and another vs. State of Punjab and others. It is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that a careful reading of the plaint moreso, paragraph 6 would show that actually the petitioners are not in possession of the property and have cleverly, instead of seeking the original relief of possession, are seeking the alternative relief of possession by stating that in case the defendants are proved to be in possession of the suit property, they be granted possession. It is further submitted that even as per the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ravinder Kumar Modi (supra) and also provision of Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Court Fees Act, all the aspects including the aspect as to whether on the date of filing of suit, the petitioners were in possession or not, are required to be considered for the purpose of adjudicating as to how much of court fee is payable by the petitioners. It is submitted that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners were not in possession of suit property on the date of suit, then much higher court fee would be payable. It is however fairly submitted that since the written statement has not been filed in the present case, thus, the respondents be permitted to raise the said plea in the written statement and a specific issue regarding ‘court fee’ be framed and the said issue be decided in accordance with law at the stage of final adjudication.

4. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 17.10.2