CR-2709-2022

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-2709-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25.07.2022

Satinderjit Singh

... Petitioner

Vs.

Amrinder Singh Dhiman

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated

21.05.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, vide which, while

allowing an application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC, the petitioner-plaintiff is directed to pay ad valorem Court fee of

Rs.65.00 lacs in a suit for damages.

The operative of the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 reads as

under: -

“10. I have further perused the findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court

given in a case of State of Punjab and other Vs. Dev Brat Sharma

Civil Appeal no 2064 of 2022 decided on 16.03.2022. In the said

matter the trial court passed order that respondent (plaintiff) was

required to make good deficiency on court fee on amount of Rs.20

VISHNU

2022.07.26 11:19

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

CR-2709-2022

-2-

Lakhs claimed by him as compensation. Hon’ble High court in a

revision petition set aside the order of Trial Court and held that as

the actual and specified amount of damages was still to be

assessed and determined by trial court, as such direction of trial

court to pay ad volerm court fee on amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs was

not sustainable in law. Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of

Hon’ble High Court dated 11.08.2017 and restored the order

dated 10.11.2016 passed by the trial court and held that since the

suit itself had been finally dismissed on 28.02.2020 but court fee

was nevertheless payable by plaintiff, respondent on valuation i.e.

Rs. 20 Lakhs. It has further been held that plaintiff respondent

shall make payment of such court fee within four weeks.

11. After perusing the findings of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

above mentioned case, it has become apparent that it is supporting

the averments of applicant/defendant and not the contentions of

respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the facts of the present

case as mentioned above and in the light of the finding of Hon’ble

Apex Court referred by ld counsel for plaintiff himself, discussed

above it is held that the plaintiff has categorically specified the

amount of damages/compensation in para no 9 of his plaint,

however he has avoided to mention it in the head note of the

plaint. As such, he is liable to affix the requisite court fee on the

said amount claimed by him which is Rs. 65 Lakhs in total, on or

before next date i.e 01.07.2022, failing which the court will

VISHNU

2022.07.26 11:19

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

CR-2709-2022

-3-

proceed as per order 7 rule 11 Civil Procedure Code. Now, case is

adjourned to 01.07.2022 for the report of Reader of the Court

pertaining to making Court fee good by the plaintiff.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the plaint

(Annexure P-1), to submit that suit has been filed only for recovery of damages

and compensation to be determined by the Court, as per head note and prayer

clause, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be directed to pay

the ad valorem Court fee. In this regard, he relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (4) RCR

(Civil) 515, wherein it is held that in a case where damages are required to be

calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the

court and the balance court fee is to be paid when a final decree is to be

prepared.

There is no dispute with regard to proposition laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, a perusal of the plaint shows that the

plaintiff himself has qua