Civil Revision No.2604 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 06, 2008 Smt.Gian Wanti Jain .....Petitioner VERSUS Vijay Kumar Bansal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissing the plaint filed by the respondent has been declined. The petitioner has filed the present revision against the said order. Respondent Vijay Kumar Bansal has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50 lacs as damages for his malicious prosecution for defaming him in the estimation of others. Prayer for grant of interest at the rate of 18% is also made. He has, however, valued the suit for Civil Revision No.2604 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : the purposes of court fees at Rs.500/- and has accordingly affixed the court fees of Rs.76-50P. Through the impugned order, the trial court has viewed that the plaint cannot be rejected as the correct valuation of the relief cannot be assessed and the value as given by the respondent- plaintiff is accepted tentatively, especially so when the court is unable to say what is the correct valuation of the relief and as such it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the value as has been made by him. It is further observed that in all such cases court has no alternative than to accept the tentative valuation. When the case came up for preliminary hearing, the attention of the counsel for the petitioner was invited to a judgment passed by this court in Civil Revision No.1565 of 2007, titled Balwant Singh Vs. Rachhpal Singh, decided on 8.4.2008. After going through the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to another judgment of this court in Ranjit Kaur and ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. 2006(4) Law Herald (P& H) 3002. This was a case where plaintiff had filed a suit for damages on account of death of Jasvir Singh and had claimed a sum of Rs.20 lacs. The court held that court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint and the order of the trial court requiring him to affix court of Rs.20 lacs was up-held. It may need a notice that there is no dispute in regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay an ad valorem court fees in the case of this nature, where damages or compensation is claimed on account of malicious prosecution or otherwise. The question required Civil Revision No.2604 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : to be determined at this stage is whether the plaint can be dismissed on the ground that ad valorem court fees is required to be affixed on the amount claimed. This court in the case of Balwant Singh (supra) made reference to number of decisions, like Subhash Chander Goel Vs. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 248, Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H), State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjip Singh Chowhan, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 54, S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp.Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S.Rm.Ar.Rm.Ramanathan, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 245 and Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh Vs. Paras Nath Singh, 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 552 (SC). It was accordingly held that the ratio of law as may emerge from these judgments is that where the court is unable to say what is the correct valuation of the relief, then it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him. In such cases, the court would not have any alternative than to accept the plaintiff's valuation. Though in cases of compensation there may not be any standard available, which may help in determining the amount to which the plaintiff ultimately may be entitled to and for which he should value the relief claimed by him but yet in such cases, it can be said with certainty as to what amount would be awarded in such cases or if any amount would be awarded or not. In the case of Hem Raj (supra), the plaintiff had sued for damages on account of injuries suffered by him and had valued his suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.one lac while for the purposes of court fees it was valued at Rs.500/-. In Subhash Chander's case (supra), valuation given by the plaintiff was accepted tentatively as correct valuation in the case of claim for damages Civil Revision No.2604 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : which cannot be assessed. In Jagjip Singh Chowhan's case (supra), which was also a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, it was held that where the court is unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation made by him. In all such cases the tentative valuation of the court fees was accepted. In the present case also, it is not possible to assess the value of the damages which may be awarded in the case and the tentative valuation of the respondent-plaintiff, as assessed, is to be accepted. This is only an tentative valuation and the petitioner shall remain liable to affix the court fees on the amount of damages, if any, which is ultimately awarded to him. There does not appear tobe any variance of the ratio of law laid down in the cases of Balwant Singh and Ranjit Kaur (supra), referred to above. The reference by the counsel for the petitioner to Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, which, according to him is for determining the court fees on the basis of entire reading of the plaint, can also not be disputed. The question only is whether the respondent is to be asked to pay this court fees at this stage or not. It can be deferred till the amount of damages is assessed and decided. In view of the sufficient precedents available in this regard, the valuation of the suit done by the respondent at this stage is required to be accepted for the purposes of affixing the court fees. The petitioner, however, shall remain liable to pay the ad valorem court in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act on the amount of damages, which is ultimately awarded to him. Civil Revision No.2604 of 2008 (O&M) : 5 : While deciding this petition, I have not gone into the aspect of maintainability of such a revision petition on behalf of the petitioner in regard to payment of court fees for which there may be a question about his locus to file such a petition. It may be noticed that the matter of court fees generally is between the Government and the person concerned. I am otherwise not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and would dismiss the revision petition in limine. May 06, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE