RAJINDER KAUR Vs. DAJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are defendants No. 1 and 2 in the main suit, have filed this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff-respondents have not paid the advalorem court fee on the value of the suit land, has been dismissed.

(2.) THOUGH this revision petition is not maintainable after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, however, I have heard the counsel for the parties by treating this revision petition as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application while holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is covered by Section 7(iv)(b) and (c) of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), therefore, they are not liable to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the basis of the value of the suit land. Clause (b) of Section 7(iv) of the Act provides that in a suit or appeal to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, the court-fee is payable on the value of the relief sought. Similar is the provision under clause (c) of Section 7(iv) of the Act which provides with regard to a suit or appeal to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed. In my opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that in the instant suit, the provisions of Section 7(iv)(b) and (c) of the Act are applicable. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.