Gurdyal Singh @ Gurdial Singh And ORS. v. Mahender Singh And ORS.
!" #$ %&'(!)*
($ +,( - -(.-( !"#$ %
& "#$" '
(((( (.-(* ! '
"
'')
'*'+
'',- ./.0/0/. )#
1 2- * 3 4 )4
- 5! )' + 3,-" !
*
$ & * ' )
' * ' + ' ,- 6 .. 33 ' %
$
" * !7
3' !
*
)
''- 7 $ ' &
* $ '& ' / 8 $ '
'
9 : $ '
''$ & '
$& $$ ' $$ !* $
& ' '
$ ' '"
''$ * $ ;''
1 $' &
< $ $
!
$ ' 3"!
* &*= ,* & 3
!!"#$%&'("$!)*'+&" ,!$- $.
- / * >
4.
However, the afore-raised contention is devoid of any merit because
'
$
' ' %
$' 7 $& $$ ' $$ ' '&0.09.?@2 ! &
4 /0.6" !
'
) %
' ' -
" !
"!A0"000;20"000; $
&. It being so, the provisions of Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provide for computing the court fee in money suits including the suits for damages and compensation, according to the amount claimed, would be applicable to the said civil suit. Moreover, in State of Punjab & Others vs. Dev Brat
Sharma Civil Appeal No(s).2064 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).12468 of 2018) Decided on 16.03.2022, the Apex Court has categorically observed that "in a suit where the amount of damages is claimed, the ad-valorem Court fees would be payable on the amount claimed." The above-discussed observations clinch the entire controversy between the parties regarding the affixation of the court fee on the plaint and in the light of the same, it is held that the plaintiffs are required to affix the ad-valorem court fee on their plaint according to the amount as sought to be recovered from the defendants.
5.
The observations made in !!"#$%&'("$ !)*'+&"0) 0)! *'
'' *$
'$ $" ' ' '$$ !
$" !* $ !$ $ 6) -)'-' 3B#$".@60!
"
$ "
$& ' $$ C # 7 '
$ " '!
&
'''& "
'
& " $'
' $* 3 " "*
' & " & /(.- (0
% 1
!