Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) The interim order passed by the trial court, which is the subject-matter of challenge of this revision petition, cannot be sustained. In a suit filed b) the petitioner Khem Ram against Sukhji Ram and others, respondents, it was alleged that the site in dispute was a part of a temple and the respondents were trying to raise some construction on this site which would result in an obstruction to the petitioner in performing his religious riles of worship, kirtan, etc. The prayer made was that a declaration be issued that the site in dispute was owned by the temple and the respondents be permanently injucted from raising any construction on that site and from demolishing the temple building. A preliminary issue was framed to cover an objection regarding the valuation of suit for purposes of Court fee. The trial court holding that section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, as amended for Punjab was applicable to the case, held that the Court fee was payable on the value of the property in suit. This finding is obviously erroneous and clearly tantamounts to a patent irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. A direct authority on the point and that too of this Court, was cited before the trial court reported as Mandir Mausuma and others Vs. The Taxing officer oral other", 1971 P.L.R. 793, in which it was held that a religious property like a temple or a mosque had no market value as its ownership vests in God. The learned Subordinate Judge tried to differentiate this authority by observing that the property in dispute in the present case was attached to the temple and was not a part of the temple itself. No such distinction could have been validly made. A clear "allegation was made in the suit by the petitioner that the site in question, which was being obstructed by the respondents, was a part of the temple property. The mere fact that the temple is not actually constructed on this site would not take the property out of the category of res extra commercium. The being so, the finding that the Court fees is to be paid on the value of the property is clearly erroneous. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated March 31, 1973, is, therefore, set aside.
(2.) No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs in this revision petition. Revision allowed.;