JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - This civil revision petition is directed against order dated 8.5.2014 (Annexure P-1) whereby application of the defendant, petitioner herein, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the lower court. 2. In her application (Annexure P-3), the petitioner-defendant had requested for rejection of the plaint claiming that the suit was barred by limitation, was deficient in court fee and there was lack of jurisdiction. 3. The lower court did not find any merit in the application of the petitioner-defendant and dismissed the same vide the impugned order. 4. In a suit filed by plaintiff Darshan Singh Sahi, respondent herein, against the petitioner-defendant, recovery of damages by way of compensation to the tune of Rs.5 crores has been sought for allegedly levelling false allegations against the respondent-plaintiff intentionally and for causing defamation and mental harassment to him. 5. Genesis of the suit is found in a complaint dated 20.8.2010 filed by the defendant to DSP, Narwana which was forwarded to the SHO, Police Station, Narwana on 2.9.2010 wherein specific allegations against the plaintiff had been made that he was expert in forging documents and had forged signatures of the defendant to get the electric connection, which allegations as per claim of the plaintiff, were wrong. The plaintiff had also alleged that not only this complaint to the police but even multiple letters were sent to the close friends of the plaintiff defaming him with a purpose to dwarf him in his reputation. The plaintiff had also named few of his close friends to whom defamatory letters alleging him to be a fraudester and furnishing details further thereof, had been sent by the defendant. It was also disclosed that such defamatory letters had been sent to the friends of the plaintiff residing in SAS Nagar, Mohali. 6. Contesting the claim of the defendant in her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit, it was averred by the respondent-plaintiff that reducing the amount of compensation for damages to Rs.50 lacs, requisite court fee had been deposited and it was further claimed that the suit was within limitation as also jurisdiction of the Mohali courts was there. 7. Asserting all the grounds viz. Limitation, court fee and jurisdiction, this petition again reiterates the claim of the petitioner-defendant. 7. Asserting all the grounds viz. Limitation, court fee and jurisdiction, this petition again reiterates the claim of the petitioner-defendant. To buttress her claim and to assess merits of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, averments only in the plaint were to be gone into without considering pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement in terms of decision in Ram Prakash Gupta Versus Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others, [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3264] : 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 605 (Supreme Court). It is also claimed that averments as mentioned in the plaint, are to be taken as such. Support in this regard has been sought from Dr. Mangla Dogra and others Versus Anil Kumar Malhotra and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 800 : 2012(2) Marriage L.J. 232] : 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 976 (P&H). It is claimed that limitation for a claim of defamation is only one year. Support has been sought from two judgments of this Court in Shavinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another bearing CRM-M No.36000 of 2012 (O&M) decided on 25.9.2013 and Panjab Singh and others Versus Daler Singh bearing CRM-M No.36258 of 2012 decided on 20.9.2013. 8. So far as the matter of court fee is concerned, reducing compensation from Rs.5 crores to Rs.50 lacs, requisite court fee has already been paid. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has averred that on final adjudication whatsoever amount is awarded as compensation by the court concerned, requisite court fee would be payable as the amount of compensation has been mentioned tentatively only. Support in this regard has been sought from judgment of this Bench in S. Ajit Singh Kohar Versus Shashi Kant bearing CR No.5638 of 2014 decided on 25.8.2014, where in paras 5 and 6, it was observed as under: 5. Support in this regard has been sought from judgment of this Bench in S. Ajit Singh Kohar Versus Shashi Kant bearing CR No.5638 of 2014 decided on 25.8.2014, where in paras 5 and 6, it was observed as under: 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) Law Herald (SC) 346] : 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 Rs.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 Rs.2.00 Crores.” 9. Since the matter of compensation is yet not final and adjudication is to be made by the lower court, actual court fee payable would thus be determinable only at that point of time. 10. So far as jurisdiction of the Court at Mohali is concerned, when there is definite allegation of the plaintiff that defamatory letters were written by the defendant and were received by his kith and kin and friends at Mohali Courts at Mohali have jurisdiction, is also a question which is foreclosed for the petitioner-defendant. 11. 10. So far as jurisdiction of the Court at Mohali is concerned, when there is definite allegation of the plaintiff that defamatory letters were written by the defendant and were received by his kith and kin and friends at Mohali Courts at Mohali have jurisdiction, is also a question which is foreclosed for the petitioner-defendant. 11. As regards the ground of limitation, no doubt, suit for seeking compensation for defamation is to be filed within one year of arising of cause of action but in this case, cause of action cannot be fixed to the date of filing of complaint (Annexure P-6) by the petitioner-defendant before the DSP, Narwana i.e. 20.8.2010. As has already been mentioned, cause of action is being conglomerate of facts, is not to be determined only from averments of the complaint but also is to be considered from defamatory letters which had reached kith and kin and friends of the plaintiff at different points of time and even later than the date of filing of the suit i.e. 20.9.2011. Even legal notice (Annexure P-10) was sent to the plaintiff on 11.10.2010 averring therein the components of cause of action in the suit but the defendant did not budge even then. 12. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed above, when all the matters have been discussed in detail, there is neither any factual nor legal infirmity in the impugned order and the authorities cited by the counsel for the defendant, petitioner herein, facts of the case in hand being entirely different, do not help the cause of the petitioner, this revision petition has no merit. 13. Sequelly, affirming the impugned order dated 8.5.2014 (Annexure P-1) of the lower court, this revision petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————