JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh in which it has been held that the plaintiff is required to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit properties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kailash Devi v. D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 97] : 2013-4 PLR 299 to contend that the Court cannot ask the plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee on the entire property in which he is only asking for a share. It is submitted by him that since the plaintiff is claiming only 60% share in the suit properties, therefore, he is liable to affix the Court fee to the extent of 60% share of the suit properties, but for that the Trial Court may be directed to assess the market value after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. 3. In the face of it, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the petitioner affix Court fees to the extent of 60% share of the suit properties, as alleged, but instead of delaying the suit further for the purpose of assessment of the market value of the suit properties, the petitioner may affix the Court fee on the basis of Collector rate, as fixed in Chandigarh. 4. Since the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is quite genuine, therefore, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to affix the Court fee to the extent of 60% share of the suit properties, as claimed by him, on the Collector rate. Let the Court fee, if any, be affixed on the next date fixed by the Trial Court where the case is fixed for today. Copy dasti. ————————