ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2019 vide which the plaintiff-petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem court fees on Rs.5,00,000/-, the amount sought as damages/compensation.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to damages/compensation to the tune of atleast Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant-respondent for causing physical and mental harassment to the plaintiff-petitioner for involving him in a false and baseless litigation. The prayer clause of the suit reads as under :

“14. It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation/damages to the tune of at least Rs. Five lacs from the defendant, for causing physical and mental harassment to these plaintiff by involving him into false and baseless litigation, in a petition bearing CNR No.HRSIB10000962014, in Crl Petition No.83-2 of 2014 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and others titled as Kiran Vs Sushil Kumar etc. under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, decided by Shri Sunil, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ellenabad, District Sirsa, vide order dated 05.02.2018 by which the petition filed by the present defendant has been dismissed by the court, and for mandatory injunction directing/ordering the defendant to pay the above said amount to the plaintiff as compensation/damages or to pay any other amount which the Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case in hand, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs of the suit. Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be found entitled to, be also kindly granted to the plaintiff, in view of the facts and the submissions made in the aforesaid paras of the plaint, in the interest of justice.”

3. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application was filed by the defendant-respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that proper court fees had not been affixed. A reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner was directed to pay ad valorem court fees on Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. the amount sought as damages/compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the damages have not been quantified and both in the heading of the plaint as well as in the prayer clause it has been prayed that the damages/ compensation to the tune of at least Rs.5,00,000/- be paid. It is further the contention that since the damages have not been quantified, hence the question of payment of ad valorem court fees did not arise in the present case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Manpreet Singh vs. Gurmail Singh & Ors. [2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 230] to contend that the damages mentioned in the plaint are only tentative and hence no ad valorem court fees would be payable.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has contended that the amount for damages has been quantified as Rs.5,00,000/- and hence ad valorem court fees ought to have been affixed on the said amount.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case there is no assessment of the damages which has been given by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint. In the heading of the plaint as well as in the prayer clause, only a tentative amount has been mentioned. It is trite that the payment of ad valorem court fees is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and the plaintiff-petitioner can be directed to pay the court fees as assessed after the relief is granted. In the plaint it has only been mentioned that the damages to the tune of