The main legal point established in the judgment is that court fee in suits for damages or compensation must be paid according to the specific amount claimed, and not on a notional value assigned in the suit.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - In this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali (trial court), dated 05.08.2019, by which the application filed by the respondent-defendants under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been allowed.

2. The sole ground taken in that application (copy Annexure P-2), for rejection of the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioners herein, is that though vide the said suit they had sought a recovery of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as compensation and damages for the death of the father of three of the plaintiffs (husband of appellant-plaintiff No. 2), they had only filed court fee of Rs. 5350/-, commensurate to a suit value of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with them having contended in paragraph 19 of their plaint that 'a tentative compensation of notional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be taken as value for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee for claim of damages as compensation'.

3. The petitioners herein (plaintiffs), having filed a reply to that application, it was stated therein that though they were claiming Rs. 2,00,00,000/- by way of damages/compensation due to the negligent act of the defendants (as alleged), however refund of a bill for an amount of Rs. 13,87,000/- was also sought, and therefore 'a notional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be taken as value for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee for claim of damages as compensation'.

Hence, it was contended that they had affixed proper court fee and consequently the application of the respondent-defendants was required to be dismissed.

4. After having considered the matter, the learned trial court, vide the impugned order, referring to various judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs, including one of this court in State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan and others 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 54 , as also three judgments of the Supreme Court eventually held that court fee would be payable, ad valorem would be payable on the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as had been claimed by way of damages.

5. Before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Commercial Aviation & Travel Company v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal (Civil Appeal No. 2137 of 1988), decided on 13.07.1988, and various judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this court, to contend that court fee, even in a suit for damages, can be affixed on a notional value assigned in the suit.

The other judgments that he relies upon are as listed below:-

(i) Manpreet Singh v. Gurmail Singh and others (CR No. 5662 of 2014), decided on 01.04.2016;

(ii) State of Punjab and others v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan (CR No. 2933 of 2004), decided on 14.10.2004;

(iii) Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar (CR No. 2785 of 2001), decided on 21.02.2003 and

(iv) Hemraj v. Harchet Singh Law Finder Doc ID # 135495 .

6. The contention of learned counsel is that even though clause (i) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, stipulates that in a suit claiming money, including a suit for damages or compensation, the court fee must be fixed according to the amount claimed, yet, in view of what is stated at the end of clause iv (before clause v), of Section 7, to the effect that in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought, it would only be the value as has been stated by the plaintiff in the suit that is to be taken as such, for the purpose of assessment of court fee.

He submits that in the aforesaid judgments it has been held that eventually the amount of damages to be awarded (if any) to the plaintiff, not being fully determinable by the court at the initial stage, it is only after the damages are assessed by the court, on the basis of evidence led, would the exact amount of the court fee be also assessable accordingly, ad valorem, which is thereafter to be paid by the plaintiff.

7. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned senior counsel appea