Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 818 (PNJ)

Jiwan Kumar Modi v. Nand Kishore Bhandari

2013-07-04

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Petitioner/plaintiff – Jiwan Kumar Modi – by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has impugned the order dated 2.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby directing the petitioner/plaintiff to affix the ad valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 5.00 lac, claimed by him as damages in the suit along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondent/defendants claiming unliquidated damages and compensation of Rs. 5.00 lac on account of injury caused by the defendants to the plaintiff for not incorporating their names as owners in the record of house tax maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and further to transfer the ownership in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff. In addition to the damages, petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction. 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant/respondents appeared and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of nonpayment of requisite court fee on the amount of damages as claimed in the plaint. It is alleged in the application that the petitioner/plaintiff had to pay ad valorem court fee on the suit amount i.e. Rs. 5.00 lac claimed by the plaintiff in addition to the fee to be paid in a suit for mandatory injunction. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner/plaintiff is not bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed. The quantum of damages is yet to be determined by the court. Petitioner/plaintiff will make good the deficiency of the court fee, if any, after amount is assessed by the court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made specific reference to para 16 of the civil suit, which reads as under: - “That value of the suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is not ascertained at this stage to the plaintiff against the defendants. However, the plaintiff has claimed Rs.5 lacs as damages against the defendants. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made specific reference to para 16 of the civil suit, which reads as under: - “That value of the suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is not ascertained at this stage to the plaintiff against the defendants. However, the plaintiff has claimed Rs.5 lacs as damages against the defendants. The plaintiff however, tentatively fixed the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as Rs.50,000/- upon which a court fee of Rs.2250 is affixed and has been paid upon the plaint. However, the plaintiff will pay the remaining court fee upon the amount which may be found due by this Hon’ble Court ultimately at the time of final decision and jurisdiction for the relief of mandatory injunction is Rs.500/- and upon which a court fee of Rs.50/- is payable and the same has been paid on the plaint.” 7. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the exact amount of damages is yet to be assessed by the court and the court fee would be paid after assessment of the amount of damages. Learned trial court has wrongly directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 5.00 lac. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Santosh Kumari, [2007(5) Law Herald (SC) 3858] : 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 0333 to contend that in a suit for damages since correct valuation cannot be assessed, at this stage valuation put forth by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee as mentioned in para 16 of the suit, referred to above, should be accepted and the fee already affixed should be treated as adequate to proceed with the suit. 9. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment cited. 10. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra). In this case it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid on the quantum determined by the court. 10. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra). In this case it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid on the quantum determined by the court. In that case, no specific amount of damages was claimed rather that was a case where the mesne profit/damages had been sought, which were yet to be calculated. In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff has specifically claimed amount of damages which is clearly mentioned in the prayer clause as well as in the cause title of the suit, which is reproduced below: - “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to get incorporate their names as owners in the record of house tax of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and decree of damages of Rs.5 lacs each alongwith the pendentilite and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realization may kindly be passed in fravour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs.” 11. In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff has claimed a specific amount of Rs. 5.00 lac as damages. In such circumstances, petitioner/plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee as required under Section 7(i) of the Court-fees Act, 1870. 12. Relevant provision of the Court-fees Act, reads as under: - “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” 13. The case in hand is, therefore, distinguishable from the case in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) the facts in both cases being different. In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff has claimed specific compensation/damages i.e. Rs. 5.00 lac with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Identical view was taken by this Court in Manjeet Singh vs. Beant Sharma, [2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2707] : Civil Revision No.6146 of 2010 decided on 30.7.2012. In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff has claimed specific compensation/damages i.e. Rs. 5.00 lac with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Identical view was taken by this Court in Manjeet Singh vs. Beant Sharma, [2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2707] : Civil Revision No.6146 of 2010 decided on 30.7.2012. From the perusal of para 16 of the suit valuation put forth by the petitioner/plaintiff appears to be arbitrary and unreasonable in so far as the plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lac but for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 50,000/-. In such circumstances, trial court has rightly rejected the valuation. The Court can accept the valuation put forth by the petitioner if it is not arbitrarily or manifestly inadequate. From the perusal of the record and the plaint it is clear that petitioner/plaintiff has put tentative valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction in a whimsical and arbitrary manner which is manifestly inadequate. Ordinarily, the court does not examine the correctness of valuation put forth by the plaintiff but the plaintiff is also not permitted to choose unreasonable, arbitrary, whimsical figure for affixing court fee. 14. In Abdul Hamid Shamsi vs. Abdul Majid and others, AIR 1988 SC 1150 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that it is not permitted to the plaintiff to choose unreasonable and arbitrary figure for the purpose of court fee and it is open to the court to reject such figure. 15. In view of above, this Court is of the definite view that it was open to the trial court to consider, accept or reject the valuation done by the plaintiff/petitioner, rather the trial Court has rightly rejected such valuation and directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee as required to be paid on the value of the damages claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed in limine.