U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

By means of present civil revision, the plaintiff / revisionist seeks to set aside order dated 02.08.2014, passed by learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in Suit no. 974 of 2001, captioned as Miss M.K. Mamik vs The Welham Girls’ High School Society and others.

2. The dispute relates to issue no. 5. The said issue was relating to valuation of the suit and payment of court fee. The question was – whether the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient? The plaintiff desired certain reliefs in her plaint. The court below while deliberating upon the same held that the court fee paid on relief ‘a’ and ‘b’ was sufficient. Court below was, however, of the opinion that the plaintiff did not pay the required court fee in view of Section 7(1) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court was also of the opinion that the court fees paid on relief ‘c’ is insufficient and, therefore, directed that the deficient court fee be made good and, accordingly, issue no. 5 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and partly against her. Aggrieved against such an order, present civil revision has been preferred by the plaintiff / revisionist. In other words, the plaintiff has challenged that part of the order of the trial court whereby she was directed to make good the deficient court fee in respect of relief ‘c’.

3. Let us now revert back to the relief clause, which reads as under:

“(a) A decree for declaration declaring that termination letter dated 31.08.2001 issued by the defendant under the signatures of defendant no. 3 terminating the service of the plaintiff as illegal, void, inoperative and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff and she is entitled to the damages at the rate of the salary which is payable to the Maths Teacher/Head Mistress of the Junior School, with all consequential benefits.

(b) A decree for realization of a sum of Rs.12,74,020/- being the damages for the period from 01/01/2007 to 31/08/2009 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(c) A decree for damages @ Rs. 45,000/- per month from 1st September 2009 till the date of superannuation of the plaintiff on completion of 60 years of age, with all consequential benefits, may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(d) Full cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”

4. The controversy at present, is confined to relief ‘c’ of the prayer clause, which says that a decree for damages @ Rs. 45,000/- per month from 1st September 2009 till the date of superannuation of the plaintiff on completion of 60 years of age, with all consequential benefits, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

5. Learned court below relied upon sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, which runs as follows:

“7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits for money. –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, or annuities, or of other sums payable periodically) –according to the amount claimed.”

6. The court below was of the opinion that since the plaintiff has claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per month, therefore, the plaintiff was required to pay court fee on the same. It was also mentioned by the trial court that the plaintiff has paid only tentative court fee on relief ‘c’, which is insufficient.

7. It will be worthwhile to mention some of the important grounds which have been taken by the plaintiff / revisionist in her revision as below:

“Relief ‘c’ is to the following effect:

“(c) –A decree for damages @ Rs. 45,000/- per month from 1st September 2009 till the date of superannuation of the plaintiff on completion of 60 years of age with all consequential benefits may very