IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.10.2010 C.R.No.6409 of 2010 (O&M) Hari Chand ...Petitioner Versus Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd., Panchkula ...Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution. The petitioner has assessed the value for the purpose of jurisdiction at ` 5 lac, but for the purposes of Court fee the tentative value was assessed at ` 50/-. The trial Court has passed an order on 19.07.2010, that the suit is under valued and ad valorem Court fee is required to be affixed on the amount of ` 5 lac. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Santosh Kumari, AIR 2008 (SC) 171 to contend that the damages cannot be asserted at this stage. Therefore, the ad valorem Court fee is not payable. I do not that the inferences drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner are tenable in law. Firstly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma’s case (supra) was arising out a suit for specific performance and damages of non-performance of the agreement C.R.No.6409 of 2010 (O&M) in question. In the said suit, it has been held that the damages cannot be granted without payment of Court fee. Where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the court, court fee is to be paid. In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has quantified its damages. Such calculation of damages may or may not be granted by the Court, but on such claim of damages, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee. Such is the view taken by this Court in a judgment reported as Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another 2007(4) PLR 719. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 04.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2