253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4334-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision : 02.02.2026 SUKHDEV SINGH ....Petitioner Versus SURJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Present revision petition is directed against order dated

31.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali whereby on an application filed by the defendant/respondent No.1, the plaintiff has been ordered to affix ad valorem Court fee in terms of the provisions contained under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution against the defendant/respondent No.1. In the headnote as well as in the prayer clause thereof, the plaintiff sought decree for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- with costs as compensation and damages against the defendant. However, while evaluating the suit and affixing the Court fee the plaintiff pleaded as under:

9. That value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction at this stage is tentatively assessed at Rs.200/- and as such, the requisite court-fee of Rs.25/- is attached with the plaint. However, in case of the decretal of the suit of the plaintiff for any sum as assessed by the Hon’ble Court at the final decision of the case, the plaintiff shall affix the requisite court-fee on the plaint as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Court.

3. Trial Court on application filed by the defendant vide impugned order directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the plaintiff in Para No.9 of the plaint, undertook to pay ad valorem Court fee on the decretal amount, the plaintiff ought to have been directed and asked by the Trial Court to pay ad valorem Court fee on Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The argument raised is misconceived.

6. The suit is a money suit wherein the plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-. He himself has quantified the damages and compensation. Thus, no fault can be found with the direction issued by the Trial Court to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee.

7. Faced with the situation, counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff be granted liberty to move an appropriate application seeking amendment in plaint and to delete the quantification of damages by way of amendment.

8. Allowed as prayed for.

9. Plaintiff is granted liberty to seek amendment of the plaint to delete the quantification of damages, if so advised and if permissible under law.

10. Consequently, the instant revision petition is disposed off. 11. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. February 02, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)

Dpr Judge