1 Civil Revision No. 5990 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Revision No. 5990 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009 Diwan Singh --- Petitioner Versus Nachhattar Singh --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 13.9.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby he has been directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In order to bring on record how the impugned order came to be passed, it is necessary to notice few facts. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent- defendant for damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment caused to him by 2 Civil Revision No. 5990 of 2008 the respondent. On appearance, the respondent-defendant moved an application for a direction to the plaintiff to pay ad- valorem court fee on the claimed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaintiff came up with a stand by filing a reply that such application was not maintainable and, thus, he was not required to affix the ad-valorem court fee. The trial court, however, by the impugned order dated 13.9.2008, allowed the application of the respondent-defendant and directed the petitioner-plaintiff to affix ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which he had claimed as damages. The sole controversy that has been primarily raised by the plaintiff in this petition is regarding the quantum of court fees that is required to be affixed by the plaintiff in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution. According to the counsel, even though a specific amount of damages has been claimed in the suit but it is after the disposal of the suit that it would be found as to on what amount the court fee is required to be paid and at the initial stage the court should entertain the suit on the court fee paid tentatively by the plaintiff. The counsel in support of his submission relied upon three decisions of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005(1) P.L.R. 650, Subhash Chander Goel vs. Harvind Sagar, A.I.R. 2003 Punjab and 3 Civil Revision No. 5990 of 2008 Haryana 248 and Hem Raj vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The issue raised herein is no longer res integra. This Court in Jagdip Singh Chowhan’s case (supra), following the judgments in the cases of Subhash Chander Goel and Hem Raj, noticed above held that where a suit for damages for malicious prosecution has been filed and if the court is unable to say as to what is the correct valuation of the relief claimed, then in that situation, the valuation offered by the plaintiff has to be accepted as tentative valuation and court fee affixed thereon. The relevant observations rendered in para 12 in Jagdip Singh Chowhan’s case (supra), read thus: “12.The plaintiff-respondent’s suit as framed is similar to the suits for damages considered by this Court in Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh and others, 1993, Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H) and Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 P&H 248. In the former case the plaintiff had sued for damages on account of injuries suffered by him and valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1.00 lac while for the purpose of court-fees the suit was valued at Rs. 500.00. In the later case also the plaintiff had sued for damages and compensation and affixed Rs. 50.00 as court-fees. In both cases 4 Civil Revision No. 5990 of 2008 tentative valuation of the suits for the purposes of court-fees was accepted. The opinion of this Court as expressed in the above two cases is 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 that has been made by him. In such cases Court had no other alternative than to accept the plaintiff’s tentative valuation. In case of compensation, there is no objective standard available and indeed there never can be, which can help to determine the amount to which the plaintiff should value the relief claimed by him. It is the nature of things that valuation put by the plaintiff has to be tentative and cannot be disputed. Similarly, in the later case the view expressed in Hem Raj case (supra) was followed and petition’s tentative valuation was accepted.” In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.9.2008, directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is set aside. No costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) November 26, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*