Sabr Mohd. v. Mehar Mohd. And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR-5012-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2023 Sabar Mohd.

...Petitioner

Versus

Mehar Mohd. and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN H.S. MADAAN , J.

1.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Mehar Mohd. had brought a suit against defendants Mohd. Yaqoob and two others seeking recovery of Rs.10 lacs as damages on account of levelling false allegations and for malicious prosecution etc. 2.

On getting notice, the defendants had appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint being insufficiently stamped contending that the plaintiff had affixed Court fee of Rs.50/- only on the plaint when as per law, he was required to affix advalorem Court fee on Rs.10 lacs, the amount of damages claimed in the suit, therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected. 3.

The application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff, praying for its dismissal contending that appropriate Court fee has been affixed and the plaintiff is ready to pay any amount of Court fee on the

damages as assessed by the Court as and when ordered. 4.

The trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Malerkotla vide impugned order dated 14.09.2022 had dismissed the application leaving the defendant Sabar Mohd. aggrieved and he has filed the present revision petition, notice of which was given to respondent No.1/plaintiff who has put in appearance through counsel.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record and I find that the impugned order is not sustainable under law. The plaintiff himself having claimed a definite and certain amount in the suit as damages, he is liable to affix ad-valorem Court fee on such amount. Things would have been different if the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of damages leaving it to the Court to determine the same and not asking for a definite amount to be granted to him. 6.

Counsel for the petitioner/defendant has referred to judgment State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464 by the Supreme Court wherein it was observed that in a suit for recovery as damages ad valorem Court fee would be payable on the amount of damages claimed. He has further referred to judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case Kushalpal Singh & Ors. Vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd. & Ors., in CR-5931-2019 decided on 05.03.2020. 7.

Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot stand judicial scrutiny; the same is hereby set aside with a direction to the trial Court to direct the plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee on the amount of damages claimed in the suit within a reasonable time to be fixed by such trial Court and in case the plaintiff fails to do the same, then

rejecting the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as per prayer made in the application so filed by the defendants. The revision petition is allowed accordingly.