In suits for damages, court fees must be calculated on the amount claimed as per Section 7 of the Court Fee Act, and the limitation period for malicious prosecution claims starts upon final judgment of related cases.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1.The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby, making prayer for setting aside of the order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners (defendants before learned trial Court) for rejecting the plaint, was dismissed and also sought setting aside of the order dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned trial Court, in the same suit, whereby, another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed at the instance of the petitioners-defendants, for rejection of plaint, being time barred, was dismissed.

2. In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent (plaintiff before learned trial Court) made appearance through counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

4. The parties are referred to as making appearance before learned trial Court.

5. The material facts, to be noticed, as culled out from the paperbook are as follows:-

6. That, initially, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioners- defendants, for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendants made appearance in the said case and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thereby, making prayer for rejection of the plaint, for want of Court fee.

7. In the application, it was asserted that the plaintiff, in the suit had claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and therefore, the plaintiff was required to affix ad-valorem Court fee, on the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which he has not done so and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

8. However, in reply, the plaintiff resisted the application, while asserting that principle of evaluation of the suit as in simple suit for recovery of liquidated claim, will not apply for the purposes of Court fee and in such case, the suit valuation put by the plaintiff has to be tentative and cannot be disputed, where the Court is unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is and in such cases, plaintiff cannot be called upon to pay the entire Court fee, which is yet to be ascertained.

9. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, learned trial Court concluded that in the suit for claiming damages, the value has been assessed tentatively and it cannot be said that insufficient Court fee has been filed and therefore, the application was dismissed.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioners-defendants have filed the revision petition in hand.

Heard.

11. Perusal of the paperbook reveals that the copy of the plaint, pending before the trial Court, has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. Close perusal of the same reveals that Mann Singh Thakur had filed a suit for recovery. The headnote of the suit, reads as herein given:-

“Suit for recovery of Damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of damages, which includes compensation on account of loss of reputation, malicious prosecution and harassment etc. meted out by the plaintiff from the hands of the defendants.

12. In the plaint, the plaintiff had grievance about the complaints filed at the instance of the petitioners-defendants and also about the institution of civil suit by the defendants against him, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.10.2015. It was asserted in the plaint that the defendants defamed the plaintiff in the society at large, by filing false and frivolous suit, as the plaintiff was summoned by the Court in the said suit and suffered a lot, on his position and reputation in the society. In the prayer clause, again relief was sought for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest. The relief clause, in verbatim, is reproduced, as herein given:-

“It is therefore prayed that the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest at the rate 12% per annum till the realization, may kindly be decreed along with costs of the suit.

Any other relief, deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court may also be granted in favor of