The main legal point established is that in cases of damages and compensation, the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction is tentative and contingent on the final determination by the court, and undertakings to pay the required court fee upon determination of compensation are valid.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, District Bathinda whereby application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was allowed on account of non-payment of ad valorem court fee.

2. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum on account of injuries suffered by him due to negligence on the part of defendant No.1. The compensation was sought under various heads like pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of future prospects etc. and it was claimed that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the damages.

3. Defendant No.3 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and in view of Section 74 of ESIC, the trial Court is not a notified Court, therefore, the Court is not competent to try the suit.

4. The said application was contested by the plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant-Firm and suffered injuries when he was returning from his duty. The accident occurred in the area which fell within the jurisdiction of the Court. The question of jurisdiction was held to be a mixed question of law and fact could have been decided at the final stage of the trial. On this ground, the application was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, District Bathinda on 13.08.2015.

6. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on 05.07.2016 on the ground that plaintiff had claimed fixed sum of compensation and was required to pay ad valorem court fee.

7. The said application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that he had already given undertaking at the time of filing of the suit that he would pay the court fee upon final determination of compensation by the Court and suit was filed with a tentative court fee. The compensation was to be determined by the Court finally and therefore, the application was opposed.

8. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul vide order dated 02.09.2016 allowed the application granting a period of 10 days to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fee, failing which the plaint shall be rejected. The trial Court recorded that in para No.20 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically assessed the value for the purpose of court fee and an amount of Rs.1 crore has been claimed, therefore, he is required to deposit the ad valorem court fee.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that quantification of amount in a suit for recovery towards damages on account of injuries would be done by the Court on the basis of evidence. Even if, fixed amount of compensation has been prayed, still the Court would decide the quantum of compensation on the basis of evidence to be led before it. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner in para No.20 of the plaint has specifically submitted that the value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1 crore, but as per precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the plaintiff has paid an initial court fee of Rs.100/- and also undertook to pay the required court fee on the amount of compensation that may be awarded by the Court in the suit. Apparently, in pith and substance, the plaintiff has submitted he would ever remain ready and willing to pay the court fee on assessment of final amount of compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Saleem v. Usman Gani and another, 2015 (3) RCR(Civil) 650 to contend that in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, the amount claimed was only tentative on which fixed court fee was to be assessed with an undertaking to pay the remaining court fee as and when directed by the Court. Such an undertaking is a valid undertaking and the plaint cannot be rejected