IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:10.03.2026 OM STERLING GLOBAL UNIVERSITY ... Petitioner Versus POONAM KATIYAL AND ANOTHER .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, has filed the present civil revision petition assailing the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint has been allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking damages of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of defamation, alleging that the defendants during the months of September and October 2021 posted false, malicious, fake and vexatious allegations against the petitioner–plaintiff on various social media platforms including Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. It has been alleged that such postings were made knowingly and intentionally with the object of maligning the reputation of the petitioner–plaintiff and amounted to personal accusations and character assassination, thereby causing serious harm to its reputation. Hence, the present civil suit.

4. Upon notice in the said suit, the defendant no.1 appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint. It was contended that the suit was devoid of any cause of action and was barred by law. It was further submitted that the plaintiff ₹

had claimed damages to the tune of 1,50,00,000/-, however, the requisite ad valorem court fee had not been affixed on the plaint and, therefore, the plaint suffered from deficit court fee. On these grounds, it was prayed that the plaint filed by the plaintiff be rejected.

5. Upon notice of the application, the plaintiff filed a reply controverting the averments made by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and prayed that the same be dismissed.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that the plaint suffered from deficiency of ad valorem court fee. Accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to ₹

deposit the requisite ad valorem court fee on the amount of 1,50,00,000/- within 14 days, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

292.

7 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court has erred in directing the petitioner–plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed. It is contended that the present suit is one for damages on account of defamation, which is a claim for unliquidated damages, and the amount of damages is neither predetermined nor capable of precise calculation at the initial stage. According to the petitioner, such damages can only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial and, therefore, the direction to pay ad valorem court fee at the threshold is legally unsustainable.It is further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 the valuation of the suit for damages falls within the prerogative of the plaintiff, subject to determination by the learned Court at an appropriate stage. It has also been argued that the learned Trial Court has erroneously