Civil Revision No.1598 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1598 of 2008 Decided on 11.3.2010. Krishan Lal Vadera and another . .... Petitioner. Versus Devi Dayal .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Chabra, Advocate for the respondent. K.C.PURI, J. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 26.7.2006 and 5.11.2007 passed by Shri Sanjay Sandhir, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat vide which applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure – in short C.P.C.) filed by the defendant stand dismissed. The defendant-petitioner alleged that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.50 lacs as compensation, therefore, plaintiff Civil Revision No.1598 of 2008 2 is under legal obligation to pay the court fee on a sum of Rs.50 lacs and he has only affixed Court fee of Rs.50/- therefore, direction be issued to him to affix ad-valorem court fee failing which plaint should be rejected. It has also been alleged that suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and the plaint was thus liable to be rejected. Plaintiff-respondent filed reply alleging that the issue regarding court fee has already been decided vide order dated 26.7.2006. The present application is not maintainable because vide order dated 26.7.2006 Court has allowed the plaintiff to file the suit as per court fee affixed by him. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held the application as not maintainable and dismissed the same. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid orders, the respondent- petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone thorough the records of the case. The learned trial Court has held that since the actual amount of damages is yet to be assessed by the Court. So, in these circumstances, the suit cannot be dismissed for non-filing of Court fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority Subhash Chander Goel vs. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 248. The facts of case Subhash Chander Goel's case (supra) are similar. Court fee of Rs.50/- was affixed as the correct valuation, could not be assessed at this stage. The valuation of the suit was left to be determined at the time of final decision of the case after the Civil Revision No.1598 of 2008 3 evidence of both the parties is appreciated. Again this Court in authority State of Punjab and others vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan reported in 2005 (1) PLR 650 held that in a suit for damages where the tentative Court fee is affixed, in that suit cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority Abdul Hamid Shamsi vs. Abdul Majid & Ors. 1988 Civil Court Cases 340 (Supreme Court) and on the strength of the same, it is argued that where there is tentative valuation is arbitrary in that case the Court can order to reject the valuation. However, the fact remains that the trial Court has the jurisdiction to try the case of any valuation. So, there is no dispute regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. Needless to say that the trial Court shall get the court fee affixed in accordance with its assessment of the valuation at appropriate stage. So, in view of the above discussion, the revision is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE March 11th, 2010 sv