IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4334-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 Darshan Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Dharminder Singh @ Kaka and anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Utsav Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khanna, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed at the instance of petitioner/ defendant No.1 has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages alleging malicious prosecution, loss of reputation, unwanted harassment, mental agony and financial loss quantifying the damaged to the extent of Rs.2 crores (though tentative). Paragraph 22, whereby the valuation of the suit was made along with the prayer clause is extracted hereunder:-

“22. That the value of the suit cannot be determined at this stage. The plaintiff undertakes to pay the court fee on the amount granted by this Hon’ble Court in this suit. However a tentative court fee of Rs.100/- is paid on the plaintiff…..

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, prayed that suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of damages as may be determined by this Hon’ble Court after taking the evidence for malicious prosecution, loss of reputation, unwanted harassment, mental agony and financial loss suffered by the plaintiff having been caused by the defendants by lodging the false FIR No.10 dated 22-01-2014 U/S 447/506/511 IPC at P.S. Sadar Khanna as well as for facing the trial of the above noted false case, tentatively at Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of filing the suit, till the final realization of the amount including all the costs and expenses etc., may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs.”

3. Upon appearance the petitioner/ defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC while alleging that the requisite Court fee was no affixed on the plaint and thus, the same was liable to be rejected. The said application was opposed at the instance of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.07.2023 dismissed the application filed at the instance of petitioner with the following observations:-

“ Therefore tentative court fees paid by the plaintiff in instant suit is proper and the actual valuation of court fees will depend upon the merits of the case as per the evidence led by the parties. However the issue regarding court fees shall be framed separately and any deficiency, if appears to the court at the later stage shall be asked to be made good by the court. In view of the above discussion and legal pronouncements, the application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC stands dismissed and disposed off being devoid of merits in the interest of justice. Now to come upon 22.08.2023 for plaintiff evidence subject to last opportunity.”

4. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent No.1/ plaintiff despite service.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the prayer clause of the plaint dated 07.07.2018 shows that the amount of damages has been tentatively quantified at Rs.2 crores. In such circumstances, the suit is apparently covered under Clause 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff is liable to deposit Court fee on the amount claimed in the suit.

7. The present is not a case where the prayer made in the plaint is to the effect that the damages be awarded in favour of the plaintiff after considering the evidence brought on record and as quantified by the Court concerned, whereas in the present case, though stated to be te