JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) - The plaintiff is in revision against the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the learned Court below by which her application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she had filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of land measuring 13 kanals14 marlas on the basis of a Will dated 09.3.1986 executed by the Dhian Singh in her favour. It is also submitted that cause of action to file the suit arose to the plaintiff on 25.11.2005 when the defendants sold some of the area of the land in dispute. Thus, she has prayed for a decree declaring her owner in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of the Will and also that the alleged sale deed by the defendants is not biding upon her including the mutation sanctioned thereon. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff allegedly lost possession of 10 kanal 5 ½ marlas of land out of 13 kanal 14 marlas which was allegedly sold by the defendants. Accordingly, she filed an application for seeking amendment of the plaint which was allowed and she also prayed for consequential relief of possession. In view thereof, immediately, the defendants filed an application on 04.3.2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) CPC of the for rejection of the plaint on the ground that since the plaintiff is seeking consequential relief of possession, she has to pay the advalorem Court fee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is the non executant of the Will, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 : 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1356 (SC)] : 2010 AIR (SC) 2807, the petitioner is not liable to pay advalorem Court fee, rather he is to pay the affixed Court fee of Rs.19.50. 5. Randhir Singh & Ors. [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 : 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1356 (SC)] : 2010 AIR (SC) 2807, the petitioner is not liable to pay advalorem Court fee, rather he is to pay the affixed Court fee of Rs.19.50. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this revision petition because the plaintiff has amended the plaint and besides asking for declaration of her right having been accrued to her by virtue of the Will in her favour, she is asking for a decree of possession of the property in dispute which is alleged to have been sold by some body else. In this regard, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (Supra) is squarely against the petitioner because it has been held therein that if a non executant of the Will is not in possession and seeks declaration and a consequential relief of possession, he is liable to pay the advalorem Court fee as provided under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any error having been committed by the learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. Hence this revision petition is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————