JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda; whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed at the instance of petitioner/ defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1/ plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.1') filed a suit for damaged against petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 5, alleging harassment and humiliation at their hands. The prayer clause of the plaint dated 22.09.2015 is reproduced hereunder:-

'It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed with costs and a decree for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.20 lac as detailed in the heading of the pliant may kindly be passed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff may also be awarded future interest on the abovesaid amount @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The plaintiff may also be awarded any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled to in the interest of justice."

3. Petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that once respondent No.1 had sought recovery of damages specifying the quantum at Rs.20 lacs, advalorem Court Fee should have been affixed on the said amount and in the absence thereof, the plaint was liable to be rejected. Respondent No.1 filed his objections to the application filed at the instance of petitioner.

4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.12.2016 dismissed the application filed at the instance of petitioner/ defendant No.1, recording that as the amount of damages claimed was tentatively assessed in the pliant with an undertaking to pay the remaining Court fee as and when directed by the Court, the plaint could not be dismissed for want of deficiency of Court fee. It is the said order dated 14.12.2016 which has been challenged by way of present revision petition.

5. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court committed an error of law while declining the prayer made by the petitioner. He submitted that once respondent No.1 himself has quantified the amount of damages, he was required to affix advalorem Court fee at least on the amount claimed. In this regard, he refers to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 submits that as the amount of damages claimed has only been tentatively assessed with a further undertaking that respondent No.1 shall pay the requisite fee as and when directed by the learned trial Court on the final determination of the amount of damages, the impugned order is just and fair and does not warrant any interference. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Amandeep Sidhu Vs. M/s Ultratech Cement Limited and others, 2017 (1) PLR 786.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find merits in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Court fee, in a suit for damages is payable under Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as per the amount claimed. Section 7 (i) of the Act is reproduced hereunder for reference:-

'7 Computation of fees payable in certain suits.-The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:-for money.-(i) In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically)- according to the amount claimed;"

8. A perusal of the prayer clause made in the plaint which has been reproduced in the preceding part