Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)
DINESH MAHESHWARI, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
State of Punjab and Others – Appellants
Versus
Dev Brat Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2064 of 2022, SLP (Civil) No. 12468 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 – Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7 – Rejection of plaint – Damage suit – Valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and relief has to be same in money suits falling under category 7(i) – It was only in category of suits covered by Clause (iv) of Section 7 that there could be two different valuations for the purposes of jurisdiction and for relief sought – Ultimately, it would be actual relief granted which would determine court fees to be paid and same may be made good by plaintiff in case lesser court fees was paid – High Court fell in error in setting aside order passed by Trial Court whereby it had granted time to plaintiff-respondent to make good Court-fees within a particular period failing which plaint would stand rejected – Appeal allowed. (Paras 25, 28, 29, 36 and 37)
Facts of the case:
State of Punjab and its officers have assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Dev Brat Sharma and further proceeded to reject the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure [Code of Civil Procedure - CPC] after setting aside the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court holding that the respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was required to make good deficiency in the Court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs claimed by him as compensation. Moot question for consideration is whether the suit in question as framed was a money suit for compensation/damages falling under Clause (i) of Section 7 or was a suit falling in any of the categories specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act.
Findings of Court:
Plaintiff-respondent shall make payment of such court fees within four weeks from today. Plaintiff-respondent shall further be required to make payment of court fees in the appeal on the value he shall put on the relief sought to be claimed in appeal. The Appellate Court shall allow the plaintiff (who is appellant therein) to state the valuation and grant him reasonable time to make payment of court fees before proceeding further in appeal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The State of Punjab and its officers have assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Dev Brat Sharma and further proceeded to reject the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure1 [Code of Civil Procedure - CPC] after setting aside the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court holding that the respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was required to make good deficiency in the Court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs claimed by him as compensation.
FACTS:
3. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20 Lakhs as damages allegedly suffered by him on account of denying the status of freedom fighter by the defendants and also for the loss of reputation on account of non-issuance of certificate of freedom fighter along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount. The State of Punjab and five others (officers of the State Government) were impleaded as defendants. This suit was registered as Case No. 1661 of 2015 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar.
4. Briefly the facts as set out in the plaint were:
(ii) that the respondent was duly recognized by the Government of Punjab as a ‘freedom fighter’ but the defendant No. 3, the Director, Lotteries, who was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar at the relevant time, denied the said status.
(iii) that the respondent had filed two writ petitions before the High Court at Chandigarh bearing CWP No. 15316 of 2013 and CWP No. 18535 of 2013 against the rejection of his request for issuing the certificate of freedom fighter. The High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 15316/2013 on 19.07.2013 and allowed Writ Petition No. 18535/2013 on 14.11.2014.
(iv) that the respondent had to travel to Chandigarh several times, engage lawyers, pay fees and expenses for the said litigation at an old age, he had suffered great mental tension and torture on account of illegal acts of the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 (officers of State of Punjab).
(v) that the grandson of the respondent could not get admission because of non-issuance of the said certificate and so he had to be admitted in a college in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(vi) that the respondent spent approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs on litigation. He had to make several trips to Tamil Nadu for the education of his grandson, who otherwise could have been admitted in Punjab. As such, he suffered damages of approximately Rs. 20 Lakhs, which included Rs. 2 Lakhs for the litigation expenses, mental tension, harassment and further incidental damages.
5. Accordingly, a legal notice dated 16.03.2015 was given under Section 80 CPC calling upon the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs as damages suffered by him. When despite notice, the said amount was not paid, a suit was instituted praying for the following reliefs:
It is further prayed that the decreta
Damage suit – Valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and relief has to be same in money suits falling under category 7(i).
Court fees for defamation suits must be paid ad valorem based on the claimed damage amounts, prohibiting arbitrary lower valuations prior to final adjudication.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in Suits claiming damages, the court fee payable is ad valorem according to the amount claimed, and plaintiffs cannot arbitrarily value the re....
The Second Amendment to the Court Fees Act is inapplicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh without official extension, necessitating reliance on the previous legislation for court fee valuation.
A suit which has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid, can rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
