Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Singh vs Beant Sharma on 30 July, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.6146 OF 2010
DATE OF DECISION : 30th JULY, 2012
Manjeet Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Beant Sharma
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Sharma,Advocate for the respondent.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiff-Manjeet Singh by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated 10.04.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak thereby directing the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem Court fee on the amount of `2,00,000/- claimed by him as unliquidated damages in the suit.
Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against defendant- respondent Beant Singh, Principal of school claiming unliquidated damages and compensation of `2,00,000/- on account of injuries caused by defendant to the plaintiff.
Defendant moved application for rejecting the plaint on the ground of non-payment of requisite Court fee alleging that the plaintiff had to CR No.6146 of 2010 -2- pay ad valorem Court fee on suit amount of `2,00,000/- claimed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged in his reply to the application that exact amount of damages and compensation is yet to be assessed and Court fee would be paid after assessment of the amount of compensation.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on amount of `2,00,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner relying on three judgments of this Court i.e. Hem Raj versus Harchet Singh, 1993(1) CivCC 48; State of Punjab and others versus Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005(1) RCR (Civil), 54 and Subhash Chander Goel versus Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 248, contended that in suit for damages, since correct valuation cannot be assessed at this stage, the valuation put by the plaintiff for purpose of Court fee should be accepted and, therefore, in the instant case, court fees of `100/- affixed by the plaintiff should be accepted.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent-defendant contended that the plaintiff has claimed liquidated damages of `2,00,000/- and, therefore, he is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the said amount as rightly ordered by the trial Court. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in case of Ranjit Kaur and others versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 686. CR No.6146 of 2010 -3-
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is correct that judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner do support his contention to some extent. However, all the said three judgments have been referred to and considered in the case of Ranjit Kaur (supra) cited by counsel for respondent and it has been held that where specific amount of compensation is claimed the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the said amount for deciding the claim.
It would be appropriate to refer to relevant provision of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Relevant provision of Section 7 is reproduced hereunder:
"7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits:- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:-
For money - (i) In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically) - according to the amount claimed:
(ii) xxx xxx xxx
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) in suits - for accounts (f) for accounts - according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal :
In all such suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought."
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that suit for accounts falls in category different from suit for damages or compensation. In the judgment of Hem Raj (supra), suit for damages was held to be akin to suit for accounts and the same judgment was followed in the subsequent judgments of Subhash Chander Goel (supra) and State of Punjab and others (supra). However, under the above provisions of the Court Fees Act, suit for damages CR No.6146 of 2010 -4- falls under Section 7(i) whereas suit for accounts falls under Section 7(iv) (f). In case of suit for damages falling under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, the amount of Court fee has to be paid according to the amount claimed whereas in suit for accounts falling under Section 7(iv)(f), Court fee has to be paid according to the amount at which the suit is valued by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to state the same. In the instant case, the plaintiff has claimed specific amount of `2,00,000/- as compensation/damages. This is a money suit for recovery of `2,00,000/- and, therefore, in view of unambiguous and categorical provision of Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem Court fee on the aforesaid amount. This view finds support from judgment in the case of Ranjit Kaur (supra).
Although in the suit, the plaintiff has used the expression 'un liquidated damages', but in fact the plaintiff has claimed liquidated amount of damages i.e. specific amount of `2,00,000/- and it appears to have been done to evade payment of ad valorem Court fee on the suit amount.
For the reason aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court. The plaintiff-petitioner has to pay ad valorem Court fee on the suit amount claimed by him and has been rightly directed to do so by the trial Court. The impugned order, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.
30th July, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE
CR No.6146 of 2010
-5-