Sachin Sharma vs Indu Sharma - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 948

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 948

ALKA SARIN
Sachin Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Indu Sharma – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Judgement Key Points

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 06.04.2018 directing the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee on Rs.20 lakhs. (!)
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing defendants to pay damages/compensation for loss of reputation and malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, his brother, and mother. [23000800370002]
Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint alleging insufficient court fee, claiming the suit was cleverly drafted as mandatory injunction but was actually for quantified damages of Rs.20 lakhs. [23000800370003]
Plaintiff contested the application stating damages were not quantified or ascertainable at filing stage, affixed tentative court fee of Rs.50/-, and asserted readiness to pay deficient fee as assessed by the court later. [23000800370003]
Paragraph 15 of the plaint states the quantum of damages exceeds Rs.20 lakhs, but exact value could not be ascertained, quantification to be determined by court, hence tentative court fee of Rs.50/- affixed, with plaintiff ready to pay as per court's order. (!) [23000800370004]
No assessment or quantification of damages provided in the plaint heading, body, or prayer clause; valuation stated is only tentative. [23000800370004][23000800370005][23000800370007]
Payment of court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the court; plaintiff can be directed to pay as assessed after relief granted. [23000800370007]
In suits like malicious prosecution where damages cannot be valued in sure and certain terms at initial stage, court must accept plaintiff's tentative valuation as even the court cannot assess value then. [23000800370007]
Under Section 7(1)(iii) of Court-fees Act, where court unable to evaluate relief, plaintiff's valuation is tentative; court may direct payment under Section 149 CPC to enjoy relief granted; court fee matter between plaintiff and state. [23000800370007] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Impugned order dated 06.04.2018 set aside; trial court to accept tentative court fee of Rs.50/- affixed by plaintiff and proceed with suit; pending applications disposed of. [23000800370009]

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala vide which the plaintiff-petitioner has been directed to affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs.

2. Notice of motion was issued on 18.07.2018. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service.

3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant-respondents to pay damages/compensation to the plaintiff- petitioner on account of loss of reputation and malicious prosecution of the plaintiff-petitioner, his brother, Ram, and mother, Smt. Rami Devi.

4. During the pendency of the civil suit an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed for rejection of the plaint for want of appropriate and requisite court fee. The case set up by the defendant-respondents was that by cleverly drafting the plaint, the suit has been given the shape of a suit for mandatory injunction. However, the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document