CR No.1285 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1285 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Smt.Shyama Deswal ....Petitioner Vs. Ram Charan ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. Vinod K.Sharma,J. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Kurukshetra allowing an application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the code). The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit claiming damages of Rs.3 lacs. CR No.1285 of 2007 2 Defendant/respondent on appearance sought rejection of the plaint for want of proper court fee. It was claimed that the suit filed was of such a nature that the amount of damages could not be ascertained at the initial stage and therefore, tentative court fee was fixed. It was claimed that the plaintiff would make good the deficiency as and when she is directed by the court. The learned trial court observed that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that she is entitled to a sum of Rs.3 lacs as damages for defamation or harassment for lodging a false case against her. The learned court accepted the application and directed the plaintiff/petitioner to make good the court fee on 9.3.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 37 contended that the court was bound to accept the tentative valuation of the plaintiff. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan (supra), this court was pleased to lay down as under:- “12. The plaintiff-respondent's suit as framed is similar to the suits for damages considered by this Court in Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh and others, 6, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H) and Subhash Chander Goel Vs. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 P&H 248. In the former case the plaintiff had sued for damages on CR No.1285 of 2007 3 account of injuries suffered by him and valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.1.00 lac while for the purpose of court-fees suit was valued at Rs.500.00. In the later case also the plaintiff had sued for damages and compensation and affixed Rs.50.00 as court-fees. In both cases tentative valuation of the suits for the purposes of court-fees was accepted. The opinion of this Court as expressed in the above two cases is that where the Court is unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and has been made by him. In such cases, Court had no other alternative than to accept the plaintiff's tentative valuation. In case of compensation, there is no objective standard available and indeed there never can be, which can help to determine the amount to which the plaintiff should value the relief claimed by him. It is the nature of things that valuation put by the plaintiff has to be tentative and cannot be disputed. Similarly, in the later case the view expressed in Hem Raj case (supra) was followed and petition's tentative valuation was accepted.” In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not affixed any tentative valuation but claimed specific amount of Rs.3 lacs as damages and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay ad valorem court fee. This view of mine finds support from the judgment of this court in the case of Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity CR No.1285 of 2007 4 Board and another (2007) 1 RCR (Civil) 686 and the judgment of this court in the case of Jatinder Nath Sharma and another Vs. Vijay Gupta and another 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 539. There is no merit in the present revision petition, which is accordingly ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time to make good the court fee from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 17 .11.2008 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge