The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the specific amount claimed as damages, as per Section 7(i) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, regardless of the success in claiming the amount.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. - Prayer in the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order, Annexure P/4 dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Guhla directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on the plaint as well as order, Annexure P/5 dated 16.08.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Guhla, District Kaithal dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner for not complying with the direction issued vide order, Annexure P/4 dated 10.08.2016.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff claiming to be a Press Reporter of 'Hindi Daily Punjab Kesari' filed a suit against the respondents/defendants claiming damages to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs on account of loss of reputation, physical, financial and mental suffering, besides, loss in business. An application was moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the respondents/defendants claiming that the suit had been filed for recovery of specific amount of Rs.20 lakhs as damages on account of loss of reputation but the petitioner/plaintiff had deliberately not paid the ad valorem Court fee, therefore, prayer was that the plaint be rejected or in the alternative the petitioner/plaintiff be directed to pay the ad valorem Court fee.

3. In reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, reliance was placed by the petitioner on the order of this Court passed in CR No.2721 of 2011 to contend that there was no need to file any Court fee. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Guhla by placing reliance on case titled as Sunita Rani and another vs. State of Punjab and another, (2015) 3 PLR 580 held that ad valorem Court fee was liable to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff and that the order of this Court in CR No.2721 of 2011 was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case, plaintiff in his cross-examination had admitted about the recovery of damages of Rs.5 lakhs and it was not clear from the order as to whether the amount of recovery claimed in the said suit was liquidated or unliqui dated damages. Accordingly, while allowing the application, opportunity was granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee by the next date of hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Manpreet Singh vs. Gurmail Singh and others, (2017) 1 RCR (Civil) 230 contended that the valuation given by the petitioner was tentative, therefore, petitioner could not be required to pay ad valorem Court fee in a suit for damages and exact court fee would be payable only on the final decision of the case.

5. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.S. Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., 1956 AIR (Punjab) 214 in which it was held that in a claim for damages, Court fee would be payable as per Section 7 (i) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 on the amount claimed as damages. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under :-

"6. Now, the amount claimed in this suit is Rs. 6,023/1/9 and Section 7(1) Court Fees Act provides:

"7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:

(i) In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically according to the amount claimed."

The court-fee is to be paid according to the amount claimed. The question for decision in the present case is what was the amount claimed by M/s. M. S. Chemical Industries Limited. In my opinion it is Rs. 6,023/1/9 and it is on that amount that court-fee is payable.

In a case decided by the Punjab Chief Court Qayam-ud-Din vs. The Delhi Flour Mills Co Ltd 61 Pun Re (1919) 2 the plaintiff claimed that Rs. 3,625/- was due to him from the defendant by way of damages