Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs Malkit Singh on 15 January, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005553
103 2024:PHHC:005553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7199 of 2023
Date of Decision: 15.01.2024
Amrik Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Malkit Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Legal Aid Counsel
for the revisionist-petitioner.
****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By filing the instant revision-petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as
'the plaintiff') has assailed the order (Annexure P-1) handed down by learned
Additional District Judge, Sangrur (for short 'the Lower Appellate Court') in
the appeal bearing CA No.207 of 2023 titled as "Amrik Singh versus Malkit
Singh" on 03.10.2023, whereby the application, Annexure P-7, moved by the
respondent-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendant') under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for seeking rejection of the Grounds of Appeal and also
the issuance of direction to him (plaintiff) to affix the Court-fee, as per the
relief claimed by him, has been allowed.
2. I have heard learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner-
plaintiff in the present revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have also
perused the file carefully.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005553
Civil Revision No.7199 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:005553
3. Learned Legal Aid counsel for the plaintiff has contended that
during the pendency of the Civil Suit, out of which the afore-referred appeal
has arisen, the defendant had moved application Annexure P-3 with the prayer
for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-affixation of proper Court-fee
thereon and the same had been dismissed vide order Annexure P-4 and CR
No.93 of 2017, as preferred by him to lay challenge to the above-said order,
had also been dismissed by this Court vide order Annexure P-5 and it being
so, it is quite explicit that the dispute between the parties qua the affixation of
Court-fee, has already been finalized in favour of the plaintiff but vide the
impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has again directed the plaintiff to
affix the Court-fee, on the amount claimed by him, in accordance with Section
7(i) of the Court Fees Act and hence, the said order is not legally sustainable
and deserves to be set-aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelima Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors, 2021(3) SCT 622 in support of his contentions.
4. However, the afore-raised contentions are not tenable because
undisputedly, the orders Annexures P-4 & P-5, had been passed in respect of
application Annexure P-3, filed by the defendant before the trial Court during
the pendency of the above-said Civil Suit, for seeking rejection of the plaint
whereas the impugned order has been passed on application Annexure P-7, as
moved by him in the afore-referred Civil Appeal with the prayer to reject the
Grounds of Appeal, meaning thereby that vide this order, the Lower Appellate
Court did not re-open the discussion on the merits of above-said application,
Annexure P-3, as filed in the trial Court and rather, the plaintiff was required
to affix the proper Court-fee afresh while filing the said appeal.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005553
Civil Revision No.7199 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:005553
5. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the said Civil Suit for claiming a
sum of Rs.40 lac from the defendant as damages, on account of his malicious
prosecution. As regards the order Annexure P-5, the same is of no help to him
in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors
vs. Dev Brat Sharma Civil Appeal No 2064 of 2022, Decided on 16.03.2022,
to the effect that "in a suit where the amount of damages is claimed, the ad-
valorem Court fees would be payable on the amount claimed". The verdict as
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelima Srivastava (supra), is not
applicable to the instant case as the facts and circumstances of this case are
distinguishable from those of the mentioned above. In the afore-cited case, the
High Court had already passed the order for considering the appellant for
regularization of her services but the competent authority had rejected her
claim in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court subsequently
whereas in the present case, as pointed out earlier, the orders passed by the
trial Court and this Court, i.e Annexures P-4 & P-5 respectively, have not
been re-opened or considered afresh and rather, the impugned order pertains
to the controversy between the parties qua the affixation of proper Court-fee
on the Grounds of Appeal, filed by the plaintiff in the Lower Appellate Court.
6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or
perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the
revision-petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
15.01.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005553
3 of 3
