SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
Mrs. Manjit Kaul – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Anil Kumar – Respondent
CR No. 2123 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate, for the Appellant.

In suits for money, including suits for damages, the ad-valorem court fee payable shall be computed according to the amount claimed, as per Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Headnote:

Court Fees Act, 1870 - Money Suits - Interpretation of ad-valorem court fee requirement

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking recovery of Rs. 10 lac as damages for defamation. The trial court ordered the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee on the claimed amount at the initial stage of the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for recovery of damages falls within the category of money suits, and as per Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the ad-valorem court fee is required to be paid based on the amount claimed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was required to pay ad-valorem court fee on the claimed amount of damages at the initial stage of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and held that in suits for money, including suits for damages, the amount of court fee payable shall be computed according to the amount claimed.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's order requiring the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee on the claimed amount of damages at the initial stage of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. (Oral). - Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala (for short 'the trial Court') whereby the application moved by the respondent-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendant') under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking the rejection of the plaint, has been disposed of while observing that the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') is liable to pay the ad-valorem court fee qua the relief of recovery of Rs. 10 lac, she (plaintiff) has preferred the instant revision petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff in the present revision petition and have also perused the file carefully.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is ready to affix the proper court fee on the plaint at the time of final decision of the civil suit filed by her against the defendant and therefore, the impugned order requiring her at the very initial stage in the suit, to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the amount of the damages claimed by her, is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set-aside.

4. However, the afore-raised contention is sans any merit because in para no.4 of this revision petition, it has categorically been mentioned that the plaintiff filed the above-said civil suit against the defendant for seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 10 lac as damages on account of the defamatory language used by him to tarnish her image and reputation. Thus, the plaintiff has quantified the amount sought to be recovered from the defendant as damages and it being so, the said civil suit falls within the category of money suits. Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides that in the suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation etc), the amount of the court-fee payable, shall be computed according to the amount claimed. In these circumstances, it is quite explicit that the plaintiff is required to pay/affix the ad-valorem court fee on the plaint in accordance with her claim for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 10 lac from the defendant as damages.

5. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top