Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satinderjit Singh vs Amrinder Singh Dhiman on 25 July, 2022
CR-2709-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-2709-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.07.2022
Satinderjit Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
Amrinder Singh Dhiman
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated
21.05.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, vide which, while
allowing an application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC, the petitioner-plaintiff is directed to pay ad valorem Court fee of
Rs.65.00 lacs in a suit for damages.
The operative of the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 reads as
under: -
"10. I have further perused the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court
given in a case of State of Punjab and other Vs. Dev Brat Sharma
Civil Appeal no 2064 of 2022 decided on 16.03.2022. In the said
matter the trial court passed order that respondent (plaintiff) was
required to make good deficiency on court fee on amount of Rs.20
1 of 4
Lakhs claimed by him as compensation. Hon'ble High court in a
revision petition set aside the order of Trial Court and held that as
the actual and specified amount of damages was still to be
assessed and determined by trial court, as such direction of trial
court to pay ad volerm court fee on amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs was
not sustainable in law. Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of
Hon'ble High Court dated 11.08.2017 and restored the order
dated 10.11.2016 passed by the trial court and held that since the
suit itself had been finally dismissed on 28.02.2020 but court fee
was nevertheless payable by plaintiff, respondent on valuation i.e.
Rs. 20 Lakhs. It has further been held that plaintiff respondent
shall make payment of such court fee within four weeks.
11. After perusing the findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above mentioned case, it has become apparent that it is supporting
the averments of applicant/defendant and not the contentions of
respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the facts of the present
case as mentioned above and in the light of the finding of Hon'ble
Apex Court referred by ld counsel for plaintiff himself, discussed
above it is held that the plaintiff has categorically specified the
amount of damages/compensation in para no 9 of his plaint,
however he has avoided to mention it in the head note of the
plaint. As such, he is liable to affix the requisite court fee on the
said amount claimed by him which is Rs. 65 Lakhs in total, on or
before next date i.e 01.07.2022, failing which the court will
2 of 4
proceed as per order 7 rule 11 Civil Procedure Code. Now, case is
adjourned to 01.07.2022 for the report of Reader of the Court
pertaining to making Court fee good by the plaintiff."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the plaint
(Annexure P-1), to submit that suit has been filed only for recovery of damages
and compensation to be determined by the Court, as per head note and prayer
clause, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be directed to pay
the ad valorem Court fee. In this regard, he relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (4) RCR
(Civil) 515, wherein it is held that in a case where damages are required to be
calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the
court and the balance court fee is to be paid when a final decree is to be
prepared.
There is no dispute with regard to proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, a perusal of the plaint shows that the
plaintiff himself has quantified the damages in para No.9 of the plaint, which
reads as under: -
"That during the trial, the plaintiff and their family members
remained under depression and apprehension of the conviction
and the plaintiff could not take meal and food properly which
adversely affected the health and mind of the plaintiff. The
defendant has spread a bad name of the plaintiff on the basis of
false registration of above FIR and due to this, the business of the
plaintiff has ruined and due to which the plaintiff suffered loss of
business worth Rs.50,00,000/-. The plaintiff has spent a lot of
amount on litigation, medical expenses, travelling expenses and
other miscellaneous expenses which is about Rs.5,00,000/- and
3 of 4
has also suffer mental, physical discomfort due to malicious act of
defendant, thus, the plaintiff claim compensation to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- for that also. So, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
for recovery of compensation on account of malicious prosecution
of the amount as assessed by the court itself as fully detailed in the
head note of the plaint."
Though the petitioner-plaintiff has given the details of the
compensation to be recovered from the respondent-defendant, however, in a
clever manner, prayer clause is drafted that suit of the plaintiff, as prayed for in
the head note, be decreed in his favour. Prayer in the plaint is to be seen, after
going through the entire plaint, as in para No.9, as noticed above, the petitioner-
plaintiff himself has quantified the compensation of Rs.65.00 lacs, therefore, he
is liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through
the plaint and impugned order, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order, as merely by non-mentioning the specified amount in the prayer clause,
though it is specifically stated so, in the body of the plaint, the petitioner-
plaintiff cannot say that the damages are yet to be assessed by the Court.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
25.07.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
