Civil Revision No.6495 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6495 of 2009 Date of decision : 29.11.2010 Mansa Ram & another .... Petitioners Versus Prem Singh & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 10, 23 to 27 and 29 to 35. **** L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 & 4 have filed instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.08.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-4 moved by defendants for directing the plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 35) to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of compensation claimed by them in their plaint Annexure P-2, failing which the plaint be rejected. Respondents No.1 to 35 have filed suit against the petitioners and proforma respondents No.36 and 37 claiming compensation under various heads for their alleged malicious prosecution by defendants i.e. petitioners and proforma respondents No.36 and 37. Defendants in their application Annexure P-4 alleged that compensation claimed by the plaintiffs under different heads comes to Rs.13,48,500/- and, therefore, ad valorem Court fee on the said amount is required to be paid. Civil Revision No.6495 of 2009 -2- Plaintiffs filed reply Annexure P-5 to the application, thereby controverting the stand of the defendants. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed the defendants' application. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 4 have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of compensation claimed by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 686. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that they would pay ad valorem court fee after the amount of compensation is assessed by the trial Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of plaint Annexure P-2 reveals that plaintiffs have claimed compensation under different heads starting from paragraph 12 till paragraph 20 of the plaint. Accordingly plaintiffs have to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of compensation claimed by them. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument as contended by counsel for respondents that no specific amount has been claimed by the plaintiffs as compensation, even then they have to specify the amount which they claim as compensation and have to pay ad valorem court fee thereon. The amount of compensation has to be assessed by the trial Court only on the basis of the claim which the plaintiffs have made in the plaint under different heads. The plaintiffs have claimed Civil Revision No.6495 of 2009 -3- various amounts in the plaint and are supposed to pay ad valorem court fee on the total amount of compensation claimed by them. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that impugned order of the trial Court is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court is set aside and application Annexure P-4 filed by the defendants is allowed. Plaintiffs are directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of compensation claimed by them in the suit. Court fee be paid in the trial Court within two months from today, failing which the trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE November 29, 2010 'raj'