IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 Sandhya Suman and another ….Petitioners Versus Dr. Somwati ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

25.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was rejected.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit for defamation/damages claiming `1 crore was filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioners-defendants. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on account of non-affixation of ad valorem Court fee (Annexure P-2) was moved by the petitioners-defendants. It was averred in the application that since recovery of `1 crore as damages had been prayed for, Court fee of Rs.2,18,800/- was liable to be affixed. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-3) wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. On merits, the application was opposed by stating that in a suit for defamation damages sought are un-liquidated damages and the same must be quantified by the Court at the time of passing final judgment and that no Court fee would be payable upon the value of the suit since the valuation is tentative. Reliance was also placed upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs. Sat Kamal Pathak (decided on 31.07.2017) and dismissal of the application was prayed for.

3. By way of impugned order dated 25.02.2020, the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed leading to filing of the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the view taken by the trial court is erroneous, for, liquidated amount of damages were claimed by the petitioner-defendant. He submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, ad valorem Court fee would be liable to be paid on amount of damages claimed.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. The plaint is on record as Annexure P-1. The heading of the plaint reads as under:-

SUIT FOR DEFAMATION FOR CASUING MENTIAL TRAUMA AND TORTURE TO THE PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDNTS.

The facts as emanating in the plaint itself are that the plaintiff was appointed as a Lecturer (Sanskrit) by Haryana Government and since her appointment as a Lecturer plaintiff she has had an unblemished impeccable and immaculate career, throughout her career plaintiff has been transferred to several Government schools and she has had a very good track record. The defendant has maligned the image of plaintiff and plaintiff’s credibility has been lost due to defendant No.1 and plaintiff has been suffering mental trauma, harassment and torture due to defendant No.1.

8. The prayer of the plaint (Annexure P10) reads as under:-

“In premise aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court to: -

(a) Pass a Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and thereby direct defendants to pay Rs. 1,00,000,00/- (Rupees One Crore only) as compensation to the plaintiff for causing defamation and causing mental trauma and torture to the plaintiff;

(b) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be given to the plaintiff under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

9. The plaintiff in Paragraph (31) of the plaint herself assessed value of the suit for the purposes of relief as Rs.1 Crore and averred that ad valorem Court fee had been affixed on the face of the suit t