CR No. 6304 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6304 of 2010 Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 Kiran Bala .......... Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kumar & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Abohar vide which application moved by the defendant / respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen lac only) from the defendants jointly and severally, as damages for loss of her reputation, goodwill, physical harassment, and mental agony etc. The plaintiff also claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the damages. However, while assessing the value of the Court fee, he assessed the value at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and affixed the court fees, on this amount. CR No. 6304 of 2010 -2- The defendant / respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint for want of ad valorem Court fee. The application was contested. The learned trial Court accepted the application, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case R.S. Malik Vs. Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS and others, 2010(2) RCR (C) (P&H), and directed the petitioner to make good the court fees within two months i.e. upto 30.8.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that in another similar case the learned trial Court had taken other view holding that the ad valorem court fees was not payable. The order is under challenge before this Court, the revision petition was admitted, but no stay was granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended, that this revision also deserves to be admitted without stay, and is to be heard with said case. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The order of admission can not be treated to be a precedent to be followed by the Court. In any case, this Court has not upheld the order, vide which the prayer for ad valorem court fees was rejected, but admitted the revision, which means that the judgment of the learned trial Court is doubted. It is not in dispute that specific amount of damages are claimed by the petitioner, therefore, she was to pay the ad valorem court fees as directed by the learned trial Court. CR No. 6304 of 2010 -3- Finding no merit, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner approached this Court to challenge the said order, she is granted further two months time to make good the court fees i.e. by 27.11.2010. No costs. 28.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE