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) 948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Sachin Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Indu Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 4511 of 2018
Decided On : 12-05-2022

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

The valuation of damages in a suit is tentative when the exact value of the relief cannot be ascertained, and the court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the state, to be paid as assessed after the relief is granted.

Headnote:

Court Fee - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Section 7(1)(iii) of the Court-fees Act - Section 149 of the Code - [Order VII Rule 11, Section 7(1)(iii), Section 149]

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and damages. The defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint for want of appropriate court fee. The plaintiff contended that the damages were not quantified and hence, the court fee was affixed as Rs.50/- with the assertion to pay the court fee as per the court's order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the damages were not quantified in the plaint and the valuation given was only tentative. It held that the payment of court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the court, and the plaintiff can be directed to pay the court fee as assessed after the relief is granted.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff should affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs when the damages were not quantified in the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that in cases where the court is unable to evaluate the relief sought, the valuation put by the plaintiff shall be considered tentative. It emphasized that the court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the state, and the plaintiff can be directed to pay the court fee as assessed after the relief is granted.

Final Decision: The impugned order directing the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was set aside, and the tentative court fee affixed by the plaintiff was accepted by the court.

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 suit was for damages which had been quantified as Rs.20 lakhs. The application was contested by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the exact value of the relief was not ascertainable at the stage of filing of the plaint and the damages were not quantified and hence, the court fee was affixed as Rs.50/- and a specific assertion was made that as and when the damages would be assessed by the Court the deficient court fee would be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has pointed out to the plaint, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, wherein neither in the heading of the plaint nor in the prayer clause the damages have been quantified. In fact para 15 of the plaint reads as under :

    "15. That the quantum of damages is more than Rs.20 lacs but since exact value of the relief to be granted could not be ascertained and the quantification of damages is yet to be determined by this Hon'ble Court Hence tentative court fee of Rs.50/- has been affixed on the plaint by leaving final adjudication to be made by the trial court & the plaintiff is ready to pay the court fee as per the order of this Hon'ble Court."

    6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the damages have not been quantified hence the question of paying the ad valorem court fee did not arise in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this Court in Manpreet Singh vs. Gurmail Singh & Ors. [2017(1) RCR (Civil) 230] to contend that the damages, which have been mentioned in paras 9 and 15, are only tentative and in fact it has been specifically stated that the damages are not ascertainable and, hence, the plaintiff-petitioner could not have been asked to pay the exact court fee at this stage.

    7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

    8. In the present case, firstly there is no assessment of damages, which has been given by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint. The valuation given is only tentative and that too there is no prayer whatsoever wherein the damages have been quantified. It is trite that the payment of the court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and the plaintiff can be directed to pay the court fee as assessed after the relief is granted. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the damages are not being quantified, however, a vague statement has been made that the damages have been suffered by the plaintiff-petitioner of over Rs.20 lakhs. However, in para 15 it has clearly been stated that the exact value of the relief cannot be ascertained and the quantification of the damages would be determined by the Court, hence, a tentative court fee of Rs.50/- has been affixed with the plaint. At the initial stage, in a suit for malicious prosecution, there cannot be any

      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