RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.R. Nos. 2132 of 2006 and 1675 of 2007, as they arise from the same 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), Hissar, 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 that 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 CR No. 2132 of 2006. In CR 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 having already been decided.
(3.) 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.;