C.R.No.5292 of 2008 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5292 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Anita Sharma and others ….Petitioners Vs. Maninder Kaur ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioners-defendants have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 6.11.2007 (P.3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana vide which their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed as not maintainable and the defence of the defendants has been struck off. Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff Maninder Kaur filed a Civil Suit No.682 dated 17.4.2006 for recovery of Rs.50 lacs as damages on account of loss of reputation etc against the defendants- petitioners. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners-defendant Nos.3 to 5 filed an application (P.2) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint for non-affixation of proper court fee on the plaint but the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 6.11.2007 held the same not maintainable and struck off the defence of the petitioners, hence the present petition. C.R.No.5292 of 2008 #2# A perusal of the paper book reveals that on 9.3.2009, while issuing notice of motion, this Court passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his prayer in this revision petition with regard only to his relief on the order passed in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has wished to withdraw his claim with regard to striking off defence for not filing the written statement at this stage. Ordered accordingly. Notice of motion to the respondents for 11.5.2009.” Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners argues that the plaintiff-respondent had claimed a specific amount of Rs50 lacs as damages and thus in view of the provisions of Section 7 (i) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 (for short “1870 Act”), he is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee and in support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Ranjit Kaur and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 793 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order as instead of filing the written statement within the stipulated period, the defendants-petitioners filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC just to delay the proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I am persuaded to agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent has affixed a court fee of Rs.20/- only on the plaint. It is also an undisputed fact that the suit is filed for recovery of Rs.50 lacs as damages along with interest at the rate of Rs.25% per annum, the relevant prayer clause of which reads as C.R.No.5292 of 2008 #3# under: “It is therefore prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs.50.00 lacs as damages on account of loss of reputation, estimation, excruciating mental agony, hardship and loss in business due to the levelling of unfounded, unwarranted, derogatory, imputations amounting to defamation, slandar, libel, against the plaintiff by the defendant alongwith interest at the rate of 24% pa from the date of filing the suit till realization, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs.” Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce Section 7 (i) of 1870 Act, which reads thus: “7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: for money-(i) In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically)-according to the amount claimed” A perusal of Section 7(i) of 1870 Act as reproduced above makes it abundantly clear that in a suit for damages, Court fee is to be affixed according to the amount claimed. Admittedly, in the present case the amount claimed is Rs.50 lacs and thus the plaintiff-respondent is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee on the amount of relief claimed in the plaint and this view is supported by the judgment rendered by this Court in Ranjit Kaur's case (supra) and para 14 of the same reads as under: “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 C.R.No.5292 of 2008 #4# 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.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, I find merit in the present petition and the same is allowed. The findings recorded in the impugned order dated 6.11.2007 (P.3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana to the effect that “an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC had been filed on behalf of defendant Nos.3 to 5, which is not at all maintainable in the trial Court at this stage”, is set aside and the plaintiff-respondent is directed to pay the ad valorem court fee on the plaint within a period of 3 months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. October 03, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE