JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which the application filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed.

2. The petitioner had filed a suit with the following prayers:

“Suit for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, attorneys, representatives, servants etc. from interfering int the peaceful life of the plaintiff by making any illegal and frivolous demands of money and from issuing any threats to the plaintiff in order to coerce the plaintiff to shell out any money which is not due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendants and further restraining the defendants from creating any nuisance within a radius of 500 Mtrs of H.No.37, Kailash Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar and business premises situated at Sodal Mandir Lane Opp. Aggarwal Building, Sodal Road, Jalandhar for extorting any money from the plaintiff.

And

For issue of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to stay 500 meters beyond the radius of residential H.No.37, Kailash Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar and business premises situated at Sodal Mandir Lane Opp. Aggarwal Building, Sodal Road, Jalandhar and from creating any nuisance within 500 meters of the vicinity of the said properties of the plaintiff.

AND

For a decree of rendition of accounts directing the defendants to submit their alleged lawful claims, demands, if any, against the plaintiff duly supported with relevant documents to substantiate the same for adjudication of the same by the Hon'ble Court.

AND

Suit for recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- or any other amount that may be determined by the Hon'ble Court on account of damages for defamation and injuring the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by leveling false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff.”

3. One of the prayers made was for recovery of money on account of damages suffered by the plaintiff. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff was claiming recovery of Rs.20 lakh and the Court fee of only Rs.250 had been affixed and the plaintiff/petitioner was bound to affix ad valorem Court fee. The said application was opposed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 allowed the said application and granted opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to make good the deficient Court fee and further observed that in case the same is not done, then the suit will be liable to be rejected. While passing the order, trial Court had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Dev Brat Sharma reported as 2022 (13) SCC 221, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“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.

……………… …………………… ……………….

(iv) In suits –

for movable property of no market-value.

-(a) for moveable property where the subject-matter has no market-value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title,

to enforce a right to share in joint family property. – (b) to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, 

for a declaratory decree and consequential relief. - (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, 

for an injunction. – (d) to obtain an injunction,

for easements. – (e) for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and

for accounts. - (f) for accounts- according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the pla