IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8446 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 09, 2011 Sudarshan Kumari and another .......Petitioners Versus Chamkaur Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. <><><> RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha vide which application moved by the respondents- defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as “the Code”) was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to deposit the requisite deficient court fee. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a suit for recovery of Rs.30 lacs as damages and compensation for causing the death of Shri Randhir Kumar son of plaintiff- Civil Revision No.8446 of 2010 2 petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 was filed along with a suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- as additional damages for causing injury to plaintiff-petitioner No.1. An application was filed on behalf of respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on the plea that the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.30 lacs and requisite court fee has not been affixed on the said amount. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties allowed the said application and directed the plaintiff-petitioners to make good deficiency of the court fee by observing as under: “After giving careful consideration to submissions of both sides and going through the file one thing is clear that plaintiffs though have sought recovery on account of damages and compensation, but the amount as claimed has been specifically mentioned as Rs.30,00,000/-. It is settled law of our Hon'ble High Court that where specific amount is claimed for recovery, plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee. For this view, I rely upon case law, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 76 R.S.Malik vs. S.Krishan Mohan, IAS & others. Hence, in view of above discussion as well as in view of law cited above, plaintiffs are directed to affix proper requisite court fee on the plaint. Application under reference stands disposed of accordingly. Now to come up on 15.10.2010 for making good deficiency of court fee.” As the suit has been filed for specific amount of compensation, the learned trial Court has directed the plaintiff-petitioners to make good deficiency of court fee. Civil Revision No.8446 of 2010 3 In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 09, 2011 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No