A suit for monetary damages, such as for defamation, necessitates payment of ad valorem court fees based on the claimed amount, as clarified by Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. Through the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), whereby, application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. For the convenience of the discussion, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants, as making appearance before the Court below.

3. Plaintiff-respondent Mahesh Kumar Tiwari had filed a suit against defendant-petitioner Rattan Lal Joshi and others, thereby, seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.60 lakh, on account of compensation for defamation, from the defendants and they are legally bound to pay the same to the plaintiff, on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence.

4. It is asserted in the plaint that plaintiff knew defendant No.1, being member of Sharma community and society and defendant No.1 facilitated the performance of marriage of son of the plaintiff with defendant No.3-Nikhila, who is daughter of defendant No.2 and stated her date of birth to be 31.01.1990. Furthermore, he had also asserted about Nikhila to be graduate in commerce and further also projected defendant No.2, to be having reputed service in bank and having own permanent residence in front of Bhadu Petrol Pump, Gaushala Road, Abohar. Defendants No.1 and 2 also stated that their daughter has a good ideology maintaining the household establishment as well as family relationship with all members and relatives. Further, it is averred that defendants No.2 to 7 and their family members started misbehaving and interfering in daily routine work of the plaintiff and his family members. They started extending threats to the plaintiff. Thereafter, while narrating the cruelty, further, it has also been averred that date of birth of Nikhila had been wrongly projected by defendant No.1 as 31.01.1990, whereas, as per educational certificate, aadhaar card, primary certificate and FIR No.11/2018, the date of birth is stated to be 31.01.1990, 03.04.1990, 13.01.1992 and 1996 respectively. Thus, the act done by defendant No.1, as well as other defendants, is an act of fraud and cheating with false statement made by defendants to cheat and humiliate the plaintiff.

5. Furthermore, it is also averred in the plaint that defendant No.2 was not having a permanent employment in reputed bank and also not having own residential house in front of Bhadu Petrol Pump, Gaudhala road, Abohar, as projected by defendant No.1, on the first proposal of the marriage, put forth before the plaintiff. This shows that false and frivolous facts were put forth with malafide intention by defendant No.1 and made the proposal of marriage of defendant No.3 to the plaintiff's son. Also, it has been averred that false statement/wording for the proposal of marriage having made by defendant No.1 as well as other defendants, has caused unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the plaintiff and also has shattered/harmed the personal image of the plaintiff as well as his family.

6. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it is averred, as herein given:-

“8. That in this way defendant no. 1 as well as other defendants have made false statements/wording for proposal of marriage to the plaintiff as well as his family members, have not only caused unnecessarily harassment, humiliation to the plaintiff but also have shattered/harm the personal image and reputation of the plaintiff as well as his family. Besides the defamation of plaintiff amongst the public and societies at large the plaintiff and his family members humiliation undergone unnecessarily harassment, humiliation and mental tension, agony due malicious/false wording for proposal of marriage made by defendant no. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff and his family members in the shape of marriage between defendant no.3 and plaintiff's son Janardhan, as such the whole, personal/b