CR-5059-2024 and 1 other connected cases 147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.09.2025 CR-5059-2024 Gurbax Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Gurmail Kaur and another ...Respondents CR-5221-2024 Gurbax Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Mahinder Kaur ...Respondent CR-5148-2024 Gurbax Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Chand Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate for the respondent(s). PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) These three revision petitions involve common question of law in the background of same facts. 2. Three different suits were filed against the respondents seeking possession as well as mesne profits. Respondents moved application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 alleging deficiency in Court Fee. It has been DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.25 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5059-2024 and 2 other connected cases claimed that the plaintiffs were required to pay Court Fee on the relief claimed i.e. possession, mesne profits as well as other reliefs. 3. Mr. Gupta has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order. He submits that since the mesne profits have been claimed only pendente lite and no arrears have been claimed, plaintiffs cannot be asked to pay ad valorem Court Fee thereupon. In the plaint there being a specific undertaking given by the plaintiffs that they shall make the deficiency in the Court Fee good at the time of final decree, the Trial Court erred in allowing the application asking the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court Fee w.r.t. mesne profits claimed in the plaint. 4. Mr. Garg has emphatically opposed the argument raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the plaintiffs having quantified the figure w.r.t. the mesne profits, they are required to pay ad valorem Court Fee. He further submits that w.r.t. the possession also the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem Court Fee. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. 6. Section 7(iv)(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, reads as under: “7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.—The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:— xxx xxx xxx DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.25 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5059-2024 and 3 other connected cases for possession of land, houses and gardens.—(v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens—according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be— where the subject-matter is land, and— (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector’s register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled— ten times the revenue so payable: (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently— five times the revenue so payable: (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and nett profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint— fifteen times such nett profits: but where no such nett profits have arisen therefrom— the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood : (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above-mentioned—the market- value of the land: xxx” 7. The facts of the present case especially the relief clause of the plaint when gazed through the prism of the bare provision, this Court finds DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.25 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5059-2024 and 4 other connected cases that the Trial Court erred in directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court Fee even when the mesne profits though quantified were being claimed pendente lite only. However. w.r.t. the relief of possession, Mr. Garg is right that the plaintiffs are required to pay Court Fee as per law. 8. The Trial Court is directed to quantify the Court Fee w.r.t. relief of possession within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 9. The plaintiffs will be thereafter granted four weeks time to make deficiency good. The plaintiffs shall remain bound by their undertaking to make deficiency good qua court fee on mesne profits as per final decree. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant revision petitions are disposed off. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 12. A copy of this order be kept on the file of other connected cases. September 22, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.25 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document