CR No. 8090 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8090 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.12.2010 M/s Jethu Ram Rice Mills ......petitioner vs. The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. P.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) whereby the plaintiff has been called upon to affix the ad valorem Court fee. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction for grant of no due certificate and also for recovery of Rs. 75,00,000/- by way of damages. Learned trial Court vide the order impugned in the revision petition has found that the plaintiff is liable to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the amount of damages claimed to the tune of Rs. 75,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2005(1)P.L.R. 650 State of Punjab and ors vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan to contend that since the amount of damages is to be arrived at on the basis of evidence, therefore, at this stage, the plaintiff cannot be called upon to affix the ad valorem Court fee. The aforesaid judgment was considered by this Court in 2007 (4) PLR 719, Ranjit Kaur vs. PSEB, wherein after considering the CR No. 8090 of 2010 -2- judgments on the subject including Chowhan's case, it was held to the following effect: - 10. In the instant case, the amount claimed in plaint Para 23, as noticed above, being Rs. 5,00,002/-, court- fees is payable on this amount. The amount of compensation payable has to be decided by the court on the merits of case. It may be found to be more or less than the amount claimed in the suit or it may be that it is held to be not payable. Can the plaintiff for this uncertainty be allowed to pay court-fees on some tentative value, arbitrarily fixed, instead of the amount claimed by him in the suit, even though with an averment to make up the deficiency, if any, at a later stage. “Obviously not, for otherwise this would tantamount to undue and unfair advantage and indeed an abuse of the process of the Court by enabling a plaintiff to make a highly exaggerated claim at an astronomical figure and having trial process for adjudication of issues raise without payment of proper court-fees on the claim so laid.” I am supported in my above view by a judgment of this Court in Naranjan Singh's case (supra), 2002(2) Recent Civil Reports 405 wherein it was held to the following effect: - “A claim of mesne profits is in essence a claim for damages or compensation. There is a substantial difference between mesne profits, antecedents to the suit which may be always approximately valued as they have already accrued due during a definite period and mesne profits subsequent to the suit which at the date of plaint must be treated as uncertainable because it depends upon an uncertain element, namely, the period CR No. 8090 of 2010 -3- of time which would intervene between the date of the institution of the suit and the date of recovery of possession under the decree. The first category is governed by clause (i) of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act and ad valorem court fee is payable thereon whereas section category is governed by Section 11 of the Court Fee Act....” 13. The observations in Hem Raj's case (supra) that there is no distinction in a suit for rendition of accounts and a suit for damages is contrary to the provisions of Section 7(i) contemplating ad valorem court fees in a suit for money and the amount at which the relief is sought in a suit for accounts in terms of Section 7(iv) (f) of the Act. Since, the statute itself deals with these suits differently, the basis of such judgment is, in fact, contrary to the statutory provisions. 14. In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically claimed Rs. 20 lacs as damages. Though exact break up of the entire claim has not been mentioned, yet the basis of claim of such compensation is available in the plaint which is evident from reading para Nos. 5 to 9 thereof. Therefore, the plaintiffs have claimed specific amount. Whether the plaintiffs succeed in claiming such amount is not the question which can be gone into at the time of deciding the question whether proper court fees has been affixed. The plaintiff may or may not succeed in getting the amount claimed but it is for him to establish his loss and affix court fees thereon. It is well settled that the court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint. Therefore, in terms of Section 7(i) of the Act, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs. CR No. 8090 of 2010 -4- In view of the said fact, I do not find any case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.12.2010 preeti