Court fees for defamation suits must be paid ad valorem based on the claimed damage amounts, prohibiting arbitrary lower valuations prior to final adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner(s) challenging the order(s) passed by the learned Trial Court(s) in their respective Suits calling upon the petitioner(s) herein, who are the plaintiffs in the Suit(s), to deposit the deficit court fee. The Suits filed by the petitioner(s) are claiming damages qua their alleged defamation.

2. The question that arises for consideration in the present petitions is as to whether the court fee payable on such Suits claiming damages for defamation is ad valorem according to the amount claimed or whether the petitioners, as plaintiffs, can value the Suit for purposes of court fee at a value different from the amount claimed in the Suit and pay the court fee according to the said amount, with an undertaking to pay the court fee upon the amount which is finally determined by the learned Trial Court(s) in the Suits as damages payable to the petitioners.

3. The learned Trial Court has held that the petitioners are to pay the court fee on the amount claimed in the Suit.

4. In support of their submission that the petitioners are entitled to put their own valuation to the relief of damages and pay court-fee at such value, with an undertaking to deposit more court fee when the actual damages are awarded by the court, the learned counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as mentioned herein-under:

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8 SCC 600;

Amandeep Sidhu v. M/s Ultratech Cement Limited & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15769;

Maha Singh v. Mukesh & Anr., [Judgment dated 01.04.2019 in Civil Revision No. 5478 of 2019 (O&M)];

Mange Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., [Judgment dated 25.11.2019 in Civil Revision No.10281 of 2018 (O&M)];

Dev Brat Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors., (Judgment dated 11.08.2017 in Civil Revision No. 291 of 2017);

M/S Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. v. Vimla Pannalal, (1998) 3 SCC 423;

Bharpoor Singh & Anr v. Lachhman Singh, [Judgment dated 17.01.2017 in Civil Revision No. 226 of 2017 (O&M)];

Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 P&H 248;

State of Punjab and Ors v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1022;

S. Ajit Singh Kohar v. Shashi Kant, (Judgment dated 25.08.2014 in Civil Revision No. 5638 of 2014);

Kashmir Singh v. Mandeep Kaur & Ors., (Judgment dated 05.10.2018 in Civil Revision No. 6759 of 2018);

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners, however, find no merit in the same.

6. Section 7 (i) of the COURT FEES ACT , 1870 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') requires the plaintiff to pay the court fee in a Suit, inter alia claiming damages, ad valorem according to the amount claimed. Section 7 (iv)(f) of the Act, on the other-hand, requires the plaintiff, where the Suit is inter alia for accounts, to put a valuation on the relief sought and to pay the court fee on such relief.

7. In CM(M) 106/2021 titled as Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Pooja & Anr., the petitioner has filed the Suit for seeking Permanent Injunction and claimed compensation for slander against the respondents. The following prayer is made by the petitioner in the Suit:

"2. Decree for payment of Rs.1.25 Crore as Compensation for the Slander, Damages and Compensation for the mental harassment caused by the defendants, against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff."

8. As far as valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fee, paragraph 31 of the Suit reads as under:

"31. That the valuation of the suit