Jasbir Singh and Another vs Kulwinder Singh and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.—Vide impugned order dated 27.8.2011, the trial court directed the plaintiffs-petitioners to pay ad-valorem court fee on the valuation of the suit i.e. Rs. 60 lacs claimed by way of damages on account of malicious prosecution, along with interest @ 18% per annum, which is now under challenge. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in para No. 11 of the plaint that since they had been maliciously prosecuted at the hands of the defendants-respondents, therefore, they are liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs. Though they have suffered unlimited damages, which cannot be ascertained by way of money, still they claim Rs. 60 lacs tentatively as damages from the defendants besides Rs. 1,32,000/- as expenses incurred on litigation. Thus, it was further mentioned in para No. 14 that the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee is Rs. 15,000/- for the expenses and Rs. 60 lacs on account of damages. However, they pleaded that they would deposit the requisite court fee on Rs. 60 lacs as and when court deemed appropriate. The para No. 14 of the plaint is reproduced as under :-

That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee is Rs. 1,32,000/- for expenses and Rs. 15,000/- tentatively for damages and for the purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 61,32,000/-. The plaintiffs undertake to deposit the requisite court fee on Rs. 60,00,000/- claimed as damages as and when court would deem fit and proper.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that since the damages are not determined, therefore, he was not liable to pay the court fee. The said contention is not sustainable in the eyes of law. First of all the plaintiffs have claimed damages and litigation expenses for a sum certain i.e. Rs. 60 lacs and Rs. 1,32,000/- respectively and he has mentioned in para No. 14 of the plaint that he is ready to pay the requisite court fee as and when the court deems it proper. As such, the plaintiff was bound to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the value of the suit. Similar view was taken by this Court in case Ranjit Kaur and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 686, wherein it was observed as under :-

In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically claimed Rs. 20 lacs as damages. Though exact break up of the entire claim has not been mentioned, yet the basis of claim of such compensation is available in the plaint which is evident from reading para Nos. 5 to 9 thereof. Therefore, the plaintiffs have claimed specific amount. Whether the plaintiffs succeed in claiming such amount is not the question which can be gone into at the time of deciding the question whether proper court fees has been affixed. The plaintiff may or may not succeed in getting the amount claimed but it is for him to establish his loss and affix court fees thereon. It is well settled that the court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint. Therefore, in terms of Section 7 (i) of the Act, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs.

Similarly, it was also observed in case R.S. Malik vs. Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS and others, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 76 that when the suit for exact money is filed by the plaintiff, then he has to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the said amount. The relevant observations made by the court in R.S. Malik''s case (supra) are reproduced as under :-

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, because the issue has been framed or that the Reader has found the Court fee to be correct can be of no consequence, as it is for the Court to determine the court fee payable on the pleadings of the parties and the note of the Reader is of no consequence. The plea that, plaintiff would pay Court fee on a subsequent date can also be of no help to the petitioner, as the Court in view of the pleadings has held that ad valorem Court fee is payable and opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to make good the Court fee. There is no merit in the revision, which is ordered to be dismissed.

As regards the judgments delivered in cases Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Others Vs. Vimla Pannalal, and State of Punjab and others vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 54, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.