Civil Revision No.6027 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6027 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.03.2009 Sandeep Sobti and another .............Petitioners Vs. Global Broadcast News and others ............Respondents Present: Mr. Deepak Sibbal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The plaintiff, who had filed a suit for damages for alleged defamation, had stated in the plaint that he was estimating the damages at Rs.4 crores. However, while valuing the suit the plaintiff had stated that he was adopting a tentative valuation and paid a lesser court fee. The trial Court referred to Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act and directed that the court fee was bound to be paid for Rs.4 crores on or before the particular date. 2. The revision petitioner contends through his counsel that in a suit for damages where the plaintiff has not been able to quantify the exact sum, he has entitled to make a tentative valuation and the Court could not have directed him to pay ad valorem fee of Rs.4 crores referred to by him. The learned counsel refers to three decisions of Civil Revision No.6027 of 2007 (O&M) -2- this Court, first of which was decided in Hem Rah Vs. Harchet Singh & others 1993 Civil Court Cases 48, Subhash Chander Goel Vs. Harvind Sagar AIR 2003 P&H 248 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan 2005(1) PLR 650. All the three decisions refer to a common line of reasoning that a suit for damages could be valued tentatively and a direction on that basis that a suit claiming damages was for the same nature and set out on same account and such a tentative valuation was possible. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent refers to a decision in Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another 2007(1) RCR 686 where the learned Judge has referred to the above decisions but still has come to the conclusion that the relevant section that would be applicable is Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. He has made pointed reference to the fact that a suit for money includes suit for damages or compensation and in such suits the court fee shall be on the amount by which he valued the relief sought. The learned Judge has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.S. Chemical Industries Limited etc. Vs. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited AIR 1956 Punjab 214 and another Bench ruling in Qyamuddin Vs. Delhi Flour Mills Co. Limited AIR 1919 Lahore 363 that the damages already suffered by a party is bound to be valued under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act. The learned Judge has also referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopalkrishna Pillai and others Vs. Meenakshi Ayal and others AIR 1967 Supreme Court 155 while concluding that the appropriate section will be only Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act and Civil Revision No.6027 of 2007 (O&M) -3- the court fee has to be paid on the damages remitted by the plaintiff. 4. I am in whole agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by this Court in Ranjit Kaur's case (supra), which, in my view, reflects the correct proposition of law by referring to binding precedents of a Division Bench and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 21, 2009 Pankaj*