Satish Kumar vs Inder Singh

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on the allegation of defamation and a tentative court fee was affixed. The quantum of damages to the extent of Rs. 10.00 lacs has been mentioned in the plaint but the court fee has been affixed only tentatively for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. In the suit petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of damages of an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs but has not affixed the ad valorem court fee. Learned trial court after considering the facts of the case came to a conclusion that when the damages are still to be ascertained, plaintiff is not required to affix the ad valorem court fee at this stage and dismissed the application as not maintainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, and P.K. Palanisamy Vs. N. Arumugham and Another,

The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, and Full Bench of this Court in Arjan Motors Malout Partnership Firm Vs. Girdhara Singh and Others, have categorically held that where application for affixing the court fee under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the trial court the defendant has no right to file a revision against such an order. The affixation of court fee is an issue between the State and the plaintiff.

Judgment in the case of P.K. Palanisamy (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case firstly for the reason that in that case insufficient court fee was affixed due to non-availability of stamps in the sub-treasury. It is also mentioned in para 8 of P.K. Palanisamy''s case (supra) that court fee is a matter between the State and the suitor This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC, if the plaint has been filed with insufficient stamps then the court can direct plaintiff to affix requisite stamps on the plaint within a time to be fixed by the court and if the plaintiff fails to comply with the direction, plaint should be rejected.

This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Here is a case where the trial court has come to a conclusion that since it is a for recovery of damages for defaming the plaintiff, damages cannot be assessed by the plaintiff it has to be determined by the court. In these circumstances, learned trial court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint moved by the petitioner.

In view of the above, revision petition is not maintainable. Dismissed.