Civil Revision No. 4769 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4769 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.10.2009 United Riceland Ltd., Karnal ......Petitioner Versus Sr. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., G.T. Road, Karnal 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 Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri D.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 26.7.2008, whereby the plaintiff has been directed to affix the advalorem Court fee on the amount of refund of the difference in the premium paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for rendition of account and a decree for recovery of the amount due to the plaintiff after the settlement of account. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier Civil Revision No. 4769 of 2008 [2] Basmati paddy was in a non hazardous category for which premium @ Rs. 1.80 per milli per annum was payable. Subsequently, such paddy was put in the hazardous category for which premium payable was Rs.4.80 per milli per annum. Though, the petitioner has paid premium for the paddy, at the rate payable for the hazardous category, but such rate was not found applicable. Therefore, the petitioner has sought refund of the difference between the tariff of hazardous and non hazardous category. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the affidavit of the representative of the plaintiff, has found that the plaitniff is claiming a sum of Rs.4,50,43,710/- from the defendants as refund. Such document has come on record by way of interrogatories. Since an ascertained amount is being claimed by the plaintiff, the Court fee is payable on the aforesaid amount. Such is the view taken by this Court in Ranjit Kaur and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2007(4) PLR 719. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 26-10-2009 ds