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) 2120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Archana Puri, J.
Surender Kumar @ Salender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Abid Khan & Ors. – Respondents
CR-2666-2022
Decided On : 08-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the relief sought in a suit determines the applicable court fee, and if the suit is in fact for recovery of a specified amount of damages, ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed.

Headnote:

Ad Valorem Court Fee - Recovery Suit - Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(i) - The court discussed the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, particularly Section 7(i), and held that the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was in fact a suit for recovery of a specified amount of damages, and therefore, ad valorem court fee was payable according to the amount claimed. The court referred to various judgments to distinguish the present case from precedents cited by the petitioner, ultimately upholding the order to pay ad valorem court fee.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction against the defendants, claiming damages of Rs.15,00,000 for construction work and purchase of building material. Defendant No.2 filed an application to direct the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit, although presented as a declaratory suit with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, was in fact a suit for recovery of a specified amount of damages, and therefore, ad valorem court fee was payable according to the amount claimed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fee for the suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction, but seeking recovery of a specified amount of damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was for recovery of a specified amount of damages, and therefore, ad valorem court fee was payable according to the amount claimed, as per Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order to pay ad valorem court fee for the suit.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J. - Through the present Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem Court fee, within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order.

2. For convenience of discussion, the parties are being referred as they have made appearance before learned trial Court.

3. The material facts to be taken into consideration are as follows:-

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction against the defendants and as per pleaded version of the plaintiff, he had a plot measuring 56 ft. x 48 ft. i.e. 2688 sq. feet, situated at Village Khanpur Jattan, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra, within abadi deh (lal dora) of village Khanpur Jattan.

4. Defendant No.1, Abid Khan, was engaged for construction of the said house in the year 2017 on contract basis, at the rate of Rs.110/- per sq. feet, for all kind of construction. The plaintiff, who is petitioner herein purchased the cement for use in the above said construction of the house from defendant No.2, who is an authorized dealer of defendants No.3 and 4. Defendant No.2 had assured the plaintiff that the cement supplied by him is of good quality. Even, defendant No.1 had assured the plaintiff about engagement of good masons and labourers for the construction of the house of the plaintiff.

5. Defendant No.1 started the construction work and put lintel on the house of the plaintiff. However, when the lintel was opened, it was cracked at many places and water was leaking from many places. The building was got inspected by the plaintiff from the building expert, who had observed that the work assigned was not done, in a proper manner by defendant No.1. Even, defendants No.2 to 4 had also supplied inferior quality of cement to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had to reconstruct the lintel and other constructions by purchasing cement and other building material and engaging other masons and labourers and thus, suffered a loss of Rs.12,00,000/-. In this way, the defendants are liable to pay damages/losses suffered by the plaintiff, which are Rs.3,00,000/- on account of loss of lintel and Rs.12,00,000/- on account of loss of other construction work, total amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff.

6. In paragraph No.4 of the suit, it is pleaded as hereingiven:-

    '4. That the plaintiff requested the defendants for paying the above said amount to the plaintiff, on which the defendant No.1 and 2 became furious and started abusing the plaintiff in filthy language and threatened to murder the plaintiff and to involve him in many false criminal cases and did not listen the plaintiff regarding the payment of damages/losses. The plaintiff served legal notice dated 03.12.2018 to the defendants whereby the defendants were called upon and advised to send the demand draft of Rs.15,00,000/- as mentioned above plus 18% per annum interest till payment to the plaintiff within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of this notice, failing which action will be taken against the defendants in court of law at their risk costs and expenses, but the defendants are adamant in not admitting the lawful and genuine claim of the plaintiff and refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff yesterday. Hence this suit."

    7. The prayer clause of the suit reads as hereingiven:-

      'It is therefore, respectfully and most humbly prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as mentioned in the plaint above plus 18% per annum interest till payment with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the said amount of Rs.15,00,000 plus 18% per annum interest till payment to the plaintiff may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs, in t

        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