JUDGMENT
Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. This order shall dispose of C.R. Nos. 2132 of 2006 and 1675 of 2007, as they arise from the suit, and in essence are inter-connected.
2. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that proper court-fee was not affixed. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hisar, vide order, dated 18.1.2006, dismissed the application by holding that as the plaintiff had claimed separate possession of 1/4th share in joint property, as a co-sharer, the correct court-fee of Rs. 25/- had been affixed. It was also held mat if any amount is found payable, after determination of the dispute the plaintiff would affix the proper court-fee. The aforementioned order is subject matter of challenge in C.R. No. 2132 of 2006.
3. In C.R. No. 1675 of 2007, the petitioner impugns an order, dated 18.1.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, deciding an application, filed by the petitioner, under Order 14 Rules 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for framing of additional issues. The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order, framed additional issues 10A to 10D but declined to frame an additional issue on the question of Court-fee, the same have already been decided.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the order, dated 18.1.2006 discloses that the question of court-fee has been kept open to be decided by the Court at the time of final judgment. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court erred in holding that as the issue with respect to court-fee had been decided, no issue was required to be framed. It is also asserted that the finding, returned by the learned trial Court, with respect to court-fee, is incorrect. The petitioner was required to pay ad valorem court-fee, as the suit property is valued at Rs. 70 lacs.
5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the orders, passed by the learned trial Court, are legal and valid and, therefore, do not call for any interference. It is submitted that as the plaintiff has claimed separate possession of 1/4th share in joint property, the finding, returned by the learned trial Court that a court-fee of Rs. 25/- was payable on the plaint, does not suffer from any error. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court rightly declined to frame any issue on the question of court-fee, as it observed that the court-fee, if any found due to the plaintiff, would be payable, after deciding the plea with respect to rendition of accounts.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that proper court-fee was not affixed on the Plaint. The learned trial Court held that as the plaintiff, a co-sharer, has prayed for separate possession of 1/4th share in joint property, the court-fee of Rs. 25/- was correctly affixed. The aforementioned finding does not suffer from any error as would require interference by this Court, as the plaintiff is a co-sharer and, therefore, would be deemed to be in joint possession.
7. As regards the plea for framing of an additional issue on the question of court-fee, the learned trial Court, while deciding the application for dismissal of the suit, held as follows:
6. Keeping in view of the facts of this case that plaintiff/respondent has claimed separate possession of 1/4th share in joint property is a co-sharer and claim rendition of account, this Court has considered opinion that the court-fees of only Rs. 25/- is payable on the plaint. However, the proper court-fee will be payable on the amount if any found due to the plaintiff and against the defendant after determination of the right of the parties after passing the judgment and decree in this case.
It is, thus, apparent that as held by the learned trial Court, the question of payment of court-fee depends upon the final outcome of the plea of settlement of accounts, and, therefore, no separate issue, in respect thereof was necessary. However, it is made clear that the learned trial Court shall be bound to decide the issue with respect of court-fee, in accordance with its observations in the order, dated 18.1.2006.
As the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction as would require interference by this Court, the present revision petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned observations.