Dalvir Singh @ Dalbir Singh @ Bhola v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024:PHHC:027090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR No.6964 of 2023 Date of Decision: 27.02.2024 Dalvir Singh @ Dalbir Singh @ Bhola .....Revisionist-Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate for the revisionist-petitioner.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 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 laid challenge to the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur (for short 'the trial Court') on 25.10.2023 in the Civil Suit No.1088 of 2022 titled as 'Dalvir Singh @ Dalbir Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab and others', whereby the application Annexure P-2, as moved by respondent-defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for seeking the rejection of the plaint on account of non-affixation of the ad-valorem Court-fee thereon, has been allowed and he (plaintiff) has been directed to pay the same accordingly.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff in the present revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.

CR No.6964 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:027090 3.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff has filed the above-referred Civil Suit for seeking the recovery of the sum of Rs.50 lac from the respondents-defendants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendants') as compensation/damages for his malicious prosecution but the afore-said amount is a tentative one and the actual amount shall be adjudicated by the trial Court at the time of finally deciding the Suit and therefore, the plaintiff is not required to pay/affix the ad-valorem Court-fee on the plaint in accordance with the above-claimed amount and in these circumstances, it becomes explicit that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and hence, the same deserves to be set-aside. To buttress her contention, she places reliance upon the judgment as handed down by the Co-ordinate Bench in Raj Kumar and another Vs. Tarsem Raj Goyal and others, (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17064. 4.

However, the afore-raised contention does not hold any water because a bare perusal of the plaint Annexure P-1 reveals that the plaintiff has claimed the specific/quantified amount, i.e Rs.50 (fifty) lac, from the defendants as damages/compensation. Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides for computation of Court-fee in the money suits, including the suits for damages and compensation, in accordance with the amount claimed therein. It has categorically been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan and others, Civil Appeal No.3987 of 2006, (decided on 29.05.2012) that "there can be no dispute that in a suit for malicious prosecution, ad-valorem Court-fee is payable" and also in State of Punjab & others Vs. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022(2) R.C.R

CR No.6964 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:027090 (Civil) 464 that "in a suit where the amount of damages is claimed, the advalorem Court fees would be payable on the amount claimed". In view of the above-discussed observations, the verdict rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Raj Kumar and another (supra), is of no avail to the plaintiffs. 5.

As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision-petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) February 27, 2024 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable:

Yes