Civil Revision No. 1407 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1407 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.2.2009 Sham Jindal ...Petitioner Versus Kapil Jindal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev S. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 5. S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5 crore by way of damages for defamation, against the respondents. In the course of the trial, respondents filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for the dismissal of the suit as ad-valorem court fee had not been paid on the amount claimed as damages. The learned Trial Court relied upon the judgment in State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh Chauhan 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 37 (P&H) to hold that the plaintiff-petitioner is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs.5 crore. For that purpose, the trial Court afforded an opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to make good the deficiency. The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision against the impugned order of the Trial Court. In support of his plea for the invalidation of the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1407 of 2008 -2- **** Jagdip Singh Chowhan's case. The plea advocated on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner was resisted by the defendants-respondents who, in that act of resistance, relied upon a latter Single Bench ruling of this Court in Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 686. He also argued that the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in Jagdip Singh Chauhan's case (supra) could not have been validly relied upon by the learned Trial Court as the operation thereof had been stayed by the Apex Court vide order dated 10.12.2004 in a Special Leave Petition. The plea on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner deserves disallowance. The reasons therefor are as under:- It was noticed in Ranjit Kaur's case (supra) that the judgment in Jagdip Singh Chauhan's case (supra) stands stayed by the Apex Court vide order dated 10.12.2004. In Ranjit Kaur's case (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court noticed a Division Bench ruling of this Court in M.S.Chemical Industries Limited etc. Vs. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, AIR 1956 Punjab 214 (in which judgment it was held that the Court free is payable as per the amount claimed). For recording that view, the Bench also relied upon the following observations made in Bhagwant Sarup and others Vs. Himalaya Gas Co. and others AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 41:- “9. It is the duty of the Court, in which the suit is instituted, to ensure, at the time of institution of the suit, that proper court- fee has been paid according to the Court-fees Act. It is clear from the resume of the plaint, extracted above, that the suit filed is basically and substantially one for money falling under Section 7(1) of the Court-fees Act. The averments in the plaint Civil Revision No. 1407 of 2008 -3- **** and the relief claimed essentially makes it so. So far as money suits are concerned, ad valorem court fees provided for in and computed as per Schedule I of the said Act shall have to be paid. For simple suits for money, there is no provision or warrant to fix a tentative value for court fee in the plaint, which is possible in suit for accounts or for partition or for administration or for winding up accounts of a partnership. In such type of cases, a preliminary decree is passed to ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff and when such amount is ascertained a final decree for the ascertained sum is passed. Para 48 of the Forasol case (supra) makes it abundantly clear. The basic difference in such types of cases and a money suit is that in the latter case there can only be one decree. There is, therefore, no question of affixing tentative value in a money suit in which ad valorem court fee is payable on the sum claimed. 10. In the instant case the amount claimed in plaint Para 23, as noticed above, being Rs.5,00,002/-, court-fees is payable on this amount. The amount of compensation payable has to be decided by the court on the merits of case. It may be found to be more or less than the amount claimed in the suit or it may be that it is held to be not payable. Can the plaintiff for this uncertainty be allowed to pay court-fees on some tentative value, arbitrarily fixed, instead of the amount claimed by him in the suit, even though with an averment to make up the deficiency, if any, at a later stage “Obviously not, for otherwise this would tantamount to undue and unfair advantage and Civil Revision No. 1407 of 2008 -4- **** indeed an abuse of the process of the court by enabling a plaintiff to make a highly exaggerated claim at an astronomical figure and having trial process for adjudication of issues raise without payment of proper court-fees on the claim so laid.” In Ranjit Kaur's case (supra), the Bench made the following pleadings-based observations:- 14. In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically claimed Rs.20 lacs as damages. Though exact break up of the entire claim has not been mentioned, yet the basis of claim of such compensation is available in the plaint which is evident from reading para Nos.5 to 9 thereof. Therefore, the plaintiffs have claimed specific amount. Whether the plaintiffs succeed in claiming such amount is not the question which can be gone into at the time of deciding the question whether proper court fees has been affixed. The plaintiff may or may not succeed in getting the amount claimed but it is for him to establish his loss and affix court fees thereon. It is well settled that the court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint. Therefore, in terms of Section 7(i) of the Act, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the amount of Rs.20 lacs.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the view obtained by the learned Trial Court is in accord with the law held by this Court in Ranjit Kaur's case and M.S.Chemical Industries Limited's case (supra). The petition is denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge