IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8813-2025 Date of decision: 04.12.2025 AMIT JANGRA ..Petitioner Versus KULDEEP SINGH ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the petitioner.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby, application moved by respondent-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), whereby, petitioner was directed to pay the ad valorem Court fee against the claimed amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that application filed by respondent is wrongly allowed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar. He further contends that liberty be granted to him to amend the civil suit.

3. He relies upon order dated 29.05.2012 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3987 of 2006, titled as “State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan and others”, and judgment passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4039 of 2023, titled as “Hardip Singh Vs. Daya Singh”, decided on 18.09.2024 to support his contention.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file of this case with his able assistance.

5. Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short ‘1870 Act’) reads that the amount of fee payable under the 1870 Act in the suit for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically) shall be computed according to the amount claimed.

6. A perusal of the file shows that petitioner filed suit for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of damages caused to the petitioner and since exact amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- in the suit is mentioned, therefore, there is no infirmity in order dated 13.10.2025, whereby, petitioner was directed to pay the ad valorem Court fee against the claimed amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in order dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to liberty to amend the civil suit is concerned, for that no liberty is actually required since suit can be amended as per the provisions contained in CPC.

9. In the order relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Appeal No.3987 of 2006, titled as “State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan and others” as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that respondent had option either to file application for amendment before the trial Court or to pay ad valorem Court fee as assessed.

10. In the present revision petition, there is no prayer for the same. However, it is made clear that for right of a person as contained in the statutory provision, no liberty is required by the Court.

December 04^th, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE Ayub/Saahil