← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/4391/2023dismissed

Abhishek Kashyap And ANR. v. Munir Nazar

2023-08-04Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth7 pages



 

  

 

   



!

" #"    



         $

%& $"

' ' ('

'



 

  !"

 #$ %%%% ' ('

'

) "

*+,-.

&

  !    $   '  #(  ')  $ *( ###+  $ 

 ,-,-.,.-/0

1234$')5 6!(7 +/7 !3  #$ ("

 #( ')$ #

*  ,8 &&/"3

4$"&9& 6  "+$*( ## ##0$6# # (+ 4$"$4( ' : . 6(#$*( ###$")#$ (   "$ 4$$/0 1&3 ':$   #"!)#$

+#$:(  $  : # " (($'"

 ') # ):

;  ') * #

<$  + 4(( " ( : - 6(  #  $    #$  ':  $   $

#

* #(  ("



 ,=,8.,.. ,8 &&/"3 

4$"&9&6 6#$ : (#  $+ $  ( ##*$ !# (  ##0>

1!

(:"#4$ $     $  $      ( '(    '  :     #(

'"$ ("

 ;  $ $)$ ! ##0

 !"#4$$(     ; )$"#

""

"4$$

+ ( ##4( '$( ( "!$

: ""#

+## ')$: 2 ? (" #++$+$$':#'$$  "

:$""($  ($+$ $#"!)>     ( '(    '  :  +$()    $   +  '  "  $ *( ## ##0$"# :+  



,-,-.,.-$ '  ( ')$( ##'#$6')4 )# ! 9 6(#$*( ###$ +:# $  6    /#   1-

,2 3,4,!

'

!67 8"

,+ !

+5,- 9,:+;4$  !  #5 ? (6

:+$ ("

 ,8 &&#4 #"##( ')$

#

4 $( ')$( +$ ( ##$ +!()  ! #+$(  ( ##"

' ;  ##0$

1!

(:" # : #  "(  : 

+ ) '($')

#

 "#: <$(()+$ #:  +:  ')$ 6  "(  ':  $        # 

+    ""  #

# *(#  # ) !*::: :"( :

')( ## $4( ' ) # ##0+6# $  :::* !"( : :4!  4( ' # )$($*( ## !4#$#(

" $ #$ +: = $"

$ "( #:$ (#$( 



 "$ 4$$$ "#" :$ '"( : ')$ ( ##$$ #

+$$(#$( $  )@$ ;#"!" $( $ )#$(    " $'(4

"ABHISHEK KASHYAP S/o Sh. Puran Chand Kashyap aged about 41 Years.

2. Mrs. SARAN PREETI W/o Abhishek Kashyap aged about 40 years both Resident of Village Dalwali Kalan, P.O. Datarpur, District Hoshiarpur (Plaintiffs.)

Versus

MUNIR NAZAR, Resident of H.no. 101, Guru Nanak Avenue, Hoshiarpur. Having Regd (Defendant) Suit for Recovery of the Damages for humiliation, Harassment and financial loss to the business caused by the defamatory remarks posted by the Defendant in the various whatsapp groups and in social media against the plaintiffs."

X99999999X99999999X9999999X99999999X99999999X9999999X9999999X

18. It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed in the following manner:

(a) That the decree of recovery of the damages from the Defendant, for the humiliation, Harassment and financial loss caused to the Plaintiff may kindly be passed in the favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant.

(b) The costs of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be also granted to the plaintiff against the defendant in the interest of justice."



8 4!  ()"A+$(  '! ') $6$ $

 + $&8#$(   "#" :$ # &" 

+$ '> # ')$( ##@$  ;  #  "!" 

 + $    &8  #  $  (      "

$'(4

"That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for relief of recovery of Damages tentative court of Rs. _ _ _/9 is affixed on the plaint. In case the hon'ble court come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the damages of certain amount from the of the defendant, the plaintiff is undertake to pay the court fee accordingly. The plaintiffs have suffered from humiliation, Harassment and financial loss in the business, due to the defamatory remarks posted by the Defendant in the various whataapp groups and in social media against the plaintiffs, which lower down the Reputation of the Plaintiffs in the eyes of the public at large. So the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the damages to the tune of Rs.1 crore from the defendant for his unlawful act and conduct."

B ?$6$ +$+$$ +:#C'(0 6 DState of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma 2022(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 464=Law Finder Doc ID #1957286" 4$"$$C'(0" ! $ +:   ')$6+  $ #5 ? (6 "+$( ##$#($>"#4$ &,4;$ "

 >4 #"!)#

+ 

""#  (# ## :#+$ 4(( (#  C'(06 #++$+$$!#?$6@

" &B8,/$ ## E?$"C3"

:$""($ 

#": *

+# (($"

+)#"8/3   "8/!3#$" &B8,4 #$:

"( $ $ $ (')$  '!  () $"8/!3 #$" ')$ (+( :

; ##!

( #$(##$#  ):#"#  (: ##"(!

($"( :# )# $    "!     "  8/!3  #  $  "  @  $   ;  # "!" 

 + $., .& .9#$  +: "

$'(4

"20. The moot question for consideration is whether the suit in question as framed was a money suit for compensation/damages falling under Clause (i) of " 8 or was a suit falling in any of the categories specified in clause (iv) of "8 of the Act. A reading of the relief clause would make it abundantly clear that this was a money suit for compensation/damages and not falling under any of the categories mentioned in clause (iv) of S"8 of the Act. Therefore, there would be no question at all for the applicability of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It would be a simple case of applicability of Section 7(i) of the Act and ad valorem Court9fees would have to be paid as per Schedule 1 entry 1.

21. It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court9fees would be payable on the said amount. Liberty given under clause (iv) to the specific suits of six categories is not available to the suits falling under any other clause, be it (i), (ii), (iii) etc. Once the suit in question was a money suit for compensation and damages falling under clause (i)

/

of Section 7 of the Act, ad valorem Court5fees would be payable on the amount claimed.

22. to 24.X99999999X99999999X9999999X99999999X99999999X99999X

25. This Court further relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of S.RM.AR.RM. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra)reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 equivalent of 1958 SCR 1024 and quoted a paragraph from the said judgment which explains why the legislature left it open for the plaintiff to value his claim for the six categories of the suit falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act. The basic reason was that as it was almost difficult to value the claim for any of the suits covered under Section 7(iv) , therefore, for the purposes of payment of court fees, a different valuation for the relief sought could be given. All such suits were thus placed in Clause (iv) giving liberty to the plaintiff to give a separate valuation for relief sought. However, ultimately it would be the actual relief granted which would determine the court fees to be paid and the same may be made good by the plaintiff in case lesser court fees was paid."

F #++$+$$ +:

 ')$6(# $ $" $6#$!4$ $ #"!)"( ()# (($"

+)## ((+ "8/3 #$"!4#$( 4( 4')$06 +,1 '7,+4, *2:5+,."G" $( $ $# (( $"8/3# $ " 4( ' # $*( ## ##0$

 

1!

(:"# "$ (&)&#$" &, ?$ !4#$# ++! '! $6  # )((+ ()$:+  

 ,-,-.,.-  ')$5

<

? (6 $ :

= +17 >

4, !1, !

&& "" +() + !

!

21,!2

"

*' ('

' .

 :6:21 ) Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No