2006 (4) LAW HERALD 3002 (P&H)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
CIVIL REVISION NO. 2445 OF 2005
11.08.2006
Ranjit Kaur and others
Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board and another
Respondents
Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7 (i) - Court Fees - Court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint - The plaintiff may or may not succeed in getting the amount claimed but it is for him to establish his loss and affix court fees thereon. (Para 14)
Cases Referred : -
1. Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh and ors, 1993 CCC 48. (Para 3) (Ref)
2. Subhash Chander Goel Vs. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 P&H 248. (Para 3) (Ref)
3. State of Punjab and ors Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005 CCC 37. (Para 3) (Ref)
4. Gopalakrishna Pillai and ors. Vs. Meemakshi Ayal and ors, AIR 1967 SC 155. (Para 4) (Fol)
5. M.S. Chemical Industries Ltd. etc Vs. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., AIR 1956 Punjab 214. (Para 4) (Fol)
6. Qyamuddin Vs. Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1919 Lahore 363. (Para 4) (Ref)
7. D. S. Abraham & Co. AIR 1925 Rangoon 65. (Para 4) (Ref)
8. Bhagwant Sarup and ors. Vs. Himalaya Gas Co. ors. AIR 1985 HP 41. (Para 4) (Ref)
9. M/s R & D Entrp (Exports) and anr. Vs. Air France and anr. AIR 1998 Delhi 193. (Para 4) (Ref)
10. Devi Chand Vs. Har Kishan Das, ILR. 1954 (2) Allahabad 531. (Para 4) (Ref)
11. M/s Durga Pharma Distributors, Hyderabad and anr. Vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. and ors. AIR 2000 Appellant 242. (Para 4) (Ref)
12. Naranjan Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and ors. 2002 (2) RCR 405. (Para 4) (Ref)
13. M.S Chemical Industries Ltd. etc Vs. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. AIR 1956 Punjab 214. (Para 8) Ref)
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.3.2004 holding that the plaintiffs are required to affix proper court fee on the amount of Rs.20 lacs claimed by them.
2. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed a suit for damages on account of the death of Jasvir Singh, husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner No.3, who died on 9.7.2003 due to electrocution. It has been pleaded that the deceased was working in the Punjab Police as Special Police Officer and was drawing Rs.2500/- as monthly salary and was selected as full fledged Constable. The deceased was also earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture land. The plaintiffs also claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- on treatment and travelling. Another sum of Rs.10,000/- was claimed on account of damages and repairs to the motorcycle and Rs.30,000/- on account of injuries received by plaintiff No.1. Another sum of Rs.1 lac was claimed for pain and suffering, medical expenses and for loss of comfort etc. It was also pleaded that the deceased was to retire in the year 2021 and the life expectancy of the family of the deceased is more than 80 years and, thus, claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as damages. The plaintiffs fixed the value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.500/- and paid a fee of Rs.50/- thereon.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Hem Raj vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 ( Punjab & Haryana), Subhash Chander Goel vs. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 248, and State of Punjab and others vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 37 (Punjab and Haryana), to contend that in a suit for damages, it is for the plaintiff to fix tentative value of the suit and that the court has no other alternative than to accept the plaintiff’s tentative value and, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the provisions of 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) which contemplates that in a suit for money, including suits for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically, the court fees payable is according to the amount claimed. It is contended that section 7(iv)(f) of the Act i.e., in a suit for accounts, the court fee is payable in suits for accounts according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued. Still further, it is pointed out that fixed fee contemplated under Schedule II, Item No. 17 (vi) of the Act is in the cases where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute, and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. It is, thus, sought to be argued that since the plaintiffs have claimed specific amount in the suit, it is not suit for accounts as contemplated under section 7(iv)(f) or in terms of Schedule, Item No.17(vi) of the Act and, therefore, ad valorem court fees is payable. It is further argued that the binding precedents of Hon’ble Supreme reported as Gopalakrishna Pillai and others vs. Meenakshi Ayal and others, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 155, and that of Division Bench of this Court reported as M.S. Chemical Industries Limited etc vs. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, AIR 1956 Punjab 214, has not been taken into consideration in the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the said judgments are per incurium and do not lay down binding precedence. Learned counsel also referred to a Division Bench judgment of predecessor Court reported as Qyamuddin vs. Delhi Flour Mills Co Limited, AIR 1919 Lahore 363, D.S. Abraham & Company, AIR 1925 Rangoon 65, Bhagwant Sarup and others vs. Himalaya Gas Co. and others, AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 41, M/s R & D Ent
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.