Civil Revision No. 4705 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4705 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 Smt. Viney Bala ......Petitioner Versus Sardari Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Robin Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint for non- payment of advalorem Court fee, in a suit for malicious prosecution, was dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- but affixed Rs.25/- only as Court fee. The plaintiff has claimed the said amount on the basis of a false and frivolous Civil Revision No. 4705 of 2009 [2] application filed by defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, with the intention that the proposed vendee may not pursue the agreement to sell for getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour. In the said suit, the defendant filed an application on 5.5.2009 for rejecting the suit for non payment of advalorem Court fee. On such application, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order holding that the suit is for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution. The suit has been valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.1,00,200/-, but the value for the purposes of court fee has been assessed at Rs.200/- and proper Court fee has been affixed thereon. Reliance was placed by the learned trial Court upon the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 56, to return a finding that in the cases of the present nature, when there is no objective standard available, the plaintiff may value his suit separately for the purposes of jurisdiction and may put separate tentative valuation for the purposes of the Court fee. The plaintiff-respondent has claimed a specific amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The judgment of this Court in Jagdip Singh Chowhan's case (supra), has been considered in a judgment reported as Ranjit Kaur and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2007(4) PLR 719, wherein it has been held to the following effect:- Civil Revision No. 4705 of 2009 [3] “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 done 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 advalorem court fees on the amount of Rs.20 lacs. 15. Therefore, in view of the principles discussed above and the binding precedents of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Gopalkrishna Pillai's case (supra), of this Court in M.S. Chemical Industries Limited's case (supra) as well as from clear and unambiguous language of the statute, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise if its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” Since the plaintiff is claiming a specific amount, the advalorem Court fee is required to be affixed on the basis of the relief Civil Revision No. 4705 of 2009 [4] claimed by the plaintiff. Such is a finding recorded in Ranjit Kaur's case [supra]. It is well settled that for the purposes of determining the relief claimed, the entire plaint has to be read and not a part of the plaint out of the context. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff is granted one month's time to affix the advalorem Court fee on the plaint. Allowed in the above terms. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 20-10-2009 ds