The plaintiff's tentative valuation for the purpose of court-fees should be accepted when there is no objective standard available to determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed.

K.S.Garewal, J.

1. State of Punjab and 15 others have filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dated May 12, 2004 to challenge the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioners (defendants before the trial Court) under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it had been under-valued for the purposes of court fees.

2. Jagdip Singh Chowhan has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,01,43,000.00, Rs. 2.00 crores has been claimed as damages for malicious prosecution and Rs. 1.43 lacs as expenses. The suit has been valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,01,43,000.00. However, value for purposes of court-fees has been assessed at Rs. 1.93 lacs. Out of this Rs. 1.43 lacs is for recovery of expenses and Rs. 50,000.00 is the tentative value of damages. Accordingly, court-fees affixed is Rs. 3900/- and Rs. 2850, respectively on the two reliefs. Court-fees of Rs. 19.50 has been affixed for future damages. The plaintiff has undertaken to deposit the requisite court-fees on the amount of Rs. 2.00 crores, claimed as damages, as and when the Court would deem it fit and proper.

3. After the defendants appeared, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the relief claimed was under-valued.

4. The sole question to be considered is whether in circumstances where the valuation given by the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction being Rs. 2,01,43,000.00, the value for the purposes of court-fees could be only Rs. 1.93 lacs. In other words can a suit for damages where the plaintiff is claiming Rs. 2.00 crores as damages be valued for the purpose of court-fees at Rs. 1.93 lacs. The learned Civil Judge considered Sakinabi V/s. Zeenathunnisa, AIR 1999 Kar 268, Kishore Singh V/s. Paras Nath Singh, 2002 1 RCR(Civil) 552, Iron Master (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Punjab National Bank, 2002 2 RCR(Civil) 404, Naranjan Singh V/s. Kartar Singh and Ors., 2002130 PLR 151 and Om Parkash V/s. Inderwati and Ors., 2002 131 PLR 353, but distinguished these judgments on the ground that none of these were cases in which the plaintiff had filed a suit for damages. The Court relied upon Hem Raj V/s. Harchet Singh and Ors., 1993 0 CCC 48 (P&H), and dismissed the application.

5. In this revision it has been argued that as per Section 7(i) of the Court-fees Act, in a suit for money including a suit for damages, compensation or arrears of maintenance etc. the amount of fee payable under the Court-fees Act would be according to the amount claimed. Therefore, sine the plaintiff had claimed a specific amount in the suit, the court-fees had to be affixed on the amount claimed. This had not been done by the plaintiff and for this reason the application moved by the petitioners-defendants should have been allowed and plaint rejected.

6. It may not be proper to go into the averments of the plaint as regards the actual claim for fear of prejudicing the trial Court but it does seem somewhat strange that the might of the State of Punjab is perturbed at a suit for damages filed by the plaintiff claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 2.00 crores approximately for malicious prosecution. The State asked for rejection of the plaint but in the circumstances of the present case that may not be the proper legal course. State has relied upon several authorities which shall now be considered.

7. In M.S. Chemical Industries Ltd. V/s. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, AIR 1965 Punj 214, the plaintiffs when faced with a suit filed by the Bank, filed a counter suit for damages and claimed adjustment of the amount due to the Bank. The Court held that plaintiff company was not required to pay court-fee on the amount claimed as damages but on the amount actually claimed after adjusting the amount due to the Bank. This judgment can be no avail to the petitioner State.

8. Reliance was n