Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Saleem vs Usman Gani And Anr on 9 October, 2014

            CR No.6892 of 2014                                -: 1 :-


            IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CR No.6892 of 2014
                                                 Date of decision: October 09, 2014.

            Saleem
                                                                           ... Petitioner

                               v.

            Usman Gani and another
                                                                           ... Respondents


            CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON


            Present:           Shri A.K. Vermani, Advocate, for the petitioner.


            Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral):

The petitioner-plaintiff in a suit for grant of damages and compensation on account of malicious prosecution launched against him by the respondent-defendants vide FIR No.47 of 2000 in Police Station Besau, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, which later resulted in his acquittal, tentative quantum of compensation for damages was mentioned as Rs.25.00 lacs. However, pending adjudication of the lower court, tentative court fee of Rs.500/- was affixed, undertaking to pay the remaining court fee as and when directed by the court.

The trial court taking the tentative quantum of compensation for damages of Rs.25.00 lacs, as final, called upon the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit ad-valorem court fee on such amount and had called upon him to make the deficiency good in the court fees by 5.7.2014 vide its order of 30.5.2014. When court fee was not deposited by the stipulated date, i.e., 5.7.2014, vide order dated 18.7.2014, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Both these orders of 30.5.2014 and 18.7.2014 have been impugned in this revision petition.

2. No notice is being issued to the respondents-defendants as they were ex-parte even before the lower court. Even otherwise, notice is not being issued to them to obviate delay as also no prejudice would be caused to them as the matter of payment of court fee is between the suitor and the court.

3. In Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 333 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that though court fees is payable on claim of damages but in a case where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fees is to be paid and balance court fees is payable only on the quantum, when the same is determined by the court. Reliance may be placed on Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H), wherein it was held that the court has no other alternative but to accept the plaintiff's tentative court fees till the matter is finally decided by the court. To the same effect is State of Punjab & Others v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 37 (P&H).

4. In a recent judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2013 in Civil Revision No. 7253 of 2013, interpreting Rule 11[c] of Rule VII CPC in identical circumstances relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Ratnavaramaraja vs. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 and Full Bench decision of this Court in Arjan Motors vs. Girdhara Singh and others, 1978 PLJ 36, while observing that decisions in Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 464 and P.K. Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham and another, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 129 were not applicable to the facts of the case, it has been held that when the trial Court has not come to a conclusion about quantification of damages to be recovered from defendant for defaming the plaintiff, damages could not be assessed by the plaintiff as this determination was to be made by the Court. Further, in Subhash Chander Goel Vs. Harvind Sagar, 2003 AIR VINOD KUMAR KADYAN 2014.10.16 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.6892 of 2014 -: 3 :- 248 [Punjab], in similar circumstances, in a suit for damages for maligning reputation, it was held that since exact value of the relief to be granted could not be ascertained, affixation of court fee of Rs.50/- was acceptable.

5. In a recent decision of this Court in Civil Revision No.5638 of 2014 (S. Ajit Singh Kohar v. Shashi Kant), decided on 25.8.2014, setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner-suitor was given liberty to pay court fee on the amount to be adjudicated as damages by the lower court in due course of time and not at the initial stage notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner though leaving the entire matter to the court for adjudication of the quantum of damages, had given such tentative quantum of damages to be Rs.2.00 crores.

6. Sequelly, the impugned order is set-aside leaving the petitioner to pay the court fee on the sum to be adjudicated as damages by the lower Court in due course of time, but not at this initial stage, notwithstanding that the petitioner though, leaving the entire matter to the court for adjudication of the quantum of damages, himself had given the tentative quantum of damages to be Rs.25.00 lacs.

7. The revision petition is accepted in the above terms.

[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] October 09, 2014. Judge kadyan

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?