The relief claimed, not the form of the suit, determines the court fee payable.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri allowing an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) on behalf of the defendant-respondents.

2. The plaintiff petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff petitioners are entitled to damages/compensation for the loss caused by defendants Nos. 2 to 11 to the person and property i.e. agricultural land measuring 270 kanals 17 marlas as also the loss caused to the tractors, car, motor-cycle, electric connection, electric motors etc.

3. Defendant respondents appeared and moved an application that the plaintiffs in the suit have claimed compensation of Rs. 20 lacs on account of alleged loss or damages suffered by them. However, requisite court fee has not been paid. Thus, it was prayed that the plaintiffs be directed to affix ad valorem court fee.

4. The application was contested on the plea that the suit was for declaration as well as mandatory injunction and the required court fee has already been paid.

5. Learned trial court observed that the petitioner plaintiffs calculated the loss to the tune of Rs. 20 Lacs. In such circumstances they were liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount assessed. The petitioners were, therefore, directed to affix ad valorem court fee within 2 months.

6. Mr. J.S. Chahal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenges the impugned order by placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007(4) RCR(Civil) 515 : 2007(2) RCR(Rent) 465 : 2007(5) RAJ 321 (SC) wherein Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that in case where damages are required to be calculated a fixed court fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the court and the balance fee is to be paid when the final decree is to be prepared.

7. The petitioners cannot draw any support from the said judgment as in the said case it was observed that the damages cannot be granted without payment of court fee in a case the damages are required to be calculated then fixed court fee is to be paid. That was a case where mesne profits were claimed but in the present case the plaintiffs have themselves calculated the damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Hem Raj v. Harchel Singh and others, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48. In the said case also this court was pleased to lay down that valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee assessed tentatively by the plaintiff cannot be disputed. The said case would have also no application to the facts of the present case as in the present case plaintiffs/petitioners have assessed the damages as Rs. 20 lacs.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 54 : 2005(1) PLR 650, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down that in a suit for damages of approximate claim of damages for malicious prosecution principles of evaluation of suit as in simple suits for recovery or liquidated claims will not apply for the purposes of court fees. In such a suit valuation put by the plaintiff has to be tentative and cannot be disputed. The tentative value so fixed has to be accepted in a suit for unliquidated damages as already observed the plaintiffs/petitioners have assessed the liquidated damages.

Hence, this judgment also is of no help to the petitioners.

10. The petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 Punjab & Haryana 248. That was a case where the petitioner had claimed damages for maligning his reputation. This court held that the valuation assessed by the plaintiff was to be accepted