A defendant cannot challenge a plaintiff's payment of court fees via a revision petition, as the issue of court fee adequacy is primarily between the plaintiff and the State, particularly where no jurisdictional error is established.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar; whereby application filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint, has been allowed and defendants have been directed to file written statement expeditiously.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that vide the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, has been allowed. However, vide the impugned order, the plaintiff/respondent has also been permitted/directed to pay Court fees according to the amount if any decreed in its favour. Further, defendants have also been directed to file written statement expeditiously to proceed with the civil suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that impugned direction of the learned Trial Court is in the teeth of judgment of this Court passed in Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited v. Government of India, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1823367; and of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 5432 of 1992 titled as American Express Bank Ltd. vs. Calcutta Steel Co. and others, decided on 18.12.1992; wherein it has been held that if recovery is sought in a civil suit then ad valorem Court fee is liable to be paid. It is submitted that in the present case, perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-2) shows that in actual fact, respondent is seeking recovery from the petitioners. It is submitted that in the suit, respondent/plaintiff has set up a specific claim on account of wrong deduction made by the petitioner-Bank. As such, order of the learned Trial Court in refusing to direct the respondent to affix ad valorem Court fee on the ground that actual amount, if any, payable to the plaintiff is required to be ascertained and Court fee would be payable at the time of passing of decree, is illegal and incorrect. It is submitted that therefore, in view of the fact that there was monetary dispute between the petitioners and respondent, respondent was required to file ad valorem Court fee.

3. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Per contra, ld. counsel for the respondent opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and points out that the civil suit (Annexure P-2) has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the act of the defendants in illegally deducting amount of Rs.14,85,230/- from the bank account of the plaintiff be declared as illegal, null and void. It is submitted that therefore, impugned order suffers from no error, and the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners only with a malafide intent to prolong the litigation. Hence, the present Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

18.12.2019: Respondent/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit (Annexure P-2) for “Declaration to the effect that the act of the defendants be declared illegal whereby they illegally deducted the amount of Rs. 14,85,230/- from the bank account of the plaintiff on alleged account of withdrawn of concession in rate of interest on 15.04.2019 w.e.f. 27.02.2018 and the same is illegal, null and void, against the principles