C.R.No.6137 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6137 of 2010 Date of decision: 28 .07.2011 Labh Singh and another ….Petitioners Vs. Hem Raj ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioners by way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Moonak vide which the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC holding the plaintiff-petitioners liable to affix ad valorem court fee on the suit amount Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for claiming liquidated damages and compensation by way of recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the plaintiff-petitioners on account of loss of reputation and defamation etc. During the pendency of the civil suit, defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for C.R.No.6137 of 2010 #2# rejection of the plaint or to direct the plaintiff-petitioners to affix the ad valorem court fee. Upon notice, reply was filed opposing the application. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the application and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-petitioners are required to affix ad valorem court on the value of the suit amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the relief claimed is uncertain and thus in terms of Section 7 of Court Fee Act, 1870, the plaintiff-petitioners are not liable to pay the ad valorem court fee on the amount mentioned in the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified and does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to minutely peruse the plaint (P.2) wherein it has been, inter alia, submitted that the plaintiffs-petitioners along with their family members had been working in the brick kiln of the defendant-respondent for the last 15 years and as such they requested to increase their wages, which led the defendant-respondent to remove the plaintiff-petitioners and the co-workers from their job. It is further alleged that consequent upon the removal of labourers, a 'no due slip' is issued by the brick kiln owner(s). Therefore, the defendant-respondent got the signatures and thumb impression of the C.R.No.6137 of 2010 #3# plaintiff-petitioners on the letter pad of brick kiln union and wrote the word “D” (means defaulter) on the top of said letter pad and intentionally declared the plaintiffs-petitioners as defaulters. Due to this action of defendant-respondent, plaintiff-petitioners are not getting any labour work besides suffering great loss of reputation also. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for damages/compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each. In para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiffs-petitioners have declared that the tentative court fee of Rs.50/- is affixed with the suit, however, the prayer clause of the plaint reads as under: “It is, therefore, prayed that the suit for damages and compensation by way of recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- each to plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 on account of loss of reputation, loss of work, Defamation, Mental tension, Mental torture, General Damages intentionally caused by defendant to the plaintiffs, along with future interest and costs throughout may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.” A perusal of prayer clause reproduced above clearly reveals that the plaintiff-petitioners are seeking the relief for damages and compensation by way of recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- each to both the plaintiffs on account of loss of reputation etc. Therefore, the relief claimed is definite and certain and thus the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the relief claimed is not certain, wholly misconceived and needs to be rejected. The plaintiff-petitioners have claimed damages in terms of money i.e Rs.1,00,000/- each and thus their contention that they are liable to pay the tentative court fee of Rs.50/- is not tenable. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly held the plaintiffs-petitioners liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed by them i.e Rs.1,00,000/- each. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed C.R.No.6137 of 2010 #4# hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with impugned order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Moonak warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 28th , 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE