Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh Kohar vs Shashi Kant on 25 August, 2014
CR No. 5638 of 2014 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 5638 of 2014
Date of Decision : August 25th, 2014
S. Ajit Singh Kohar .... Petitioner
Versus
Shashi Kant .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J.
In exercise of supervisory powers of this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff for setting aside order dated 6.8.2014 [Annexure P/2], whereby he has been called upon to affix advalorem court fee on the specified amount of `2.00 Crores, in a suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount, as damages for loss of reputation.
2. It is claimed that since quantification of damages is yet to be determined by the lower Court, the petitioner-plaintiff could not have been called upon to pay the court fee on an amount, which has yet not been determined by adjudication in the suit filed by him.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a pointed reference to copy of the plaint [Annexure P/1], whereby, though, damages have been sought for loss of reputation to the extent of `2.00 Crores, yet it is mentioned that quantum is to be determined by the Court. In these circumstances, it is averred that even though figure of `2.00 Crores as an amount to be recovered as compensation has been given, yet tentative court fee of Rs.50/- has been PARKASH SOM affixed leaving final adjudication to be made by the lower Court.
2014.08.28 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5638 of 2014 2..
4. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court feels that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant and for the reasons that it would entail delay.
5. 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 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 `50/- was acceptable.
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, he himself has given the quantum of damages to be `2.00 Crores.
7. The revision petition is accepted in the above terms.
(Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) JUDGE August 25th, 2014 som PARKASH SOM 2014.08.28 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document