JAI BHAGWAN GOEL Vs. HARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order, Annexure P/4 dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Guhla directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on the plaint as well as order, Annexure P/5 dated 16.08.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Guhla, District Kaithal dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner for not complying with the direction issued vide order, Annexure P/4 dated 10.08.2016.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff claiming to be a Press Reporter of 'Hindi Daily Punjab Kesari' filed a suit against the respondents/defendants claiming damages to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs on account of loss of reputation, physical, financial and mental suffering, besides, loss in business. An application was moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the respondents/defendants claiming that the suit had been filed for recovery of specific amount of Rs.20 lakhs as damages on account of loss of reputation but the petitioner/plaintiff had deliberately not paid the ad valorem Court fee, therefore, prayer was that the plaint be rejected or in the alternative the petitioner/plaintiff be directed to pay the ad valorem Court fee.

(3.) In reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, reliance was placed by the petitioner on the order of this Court passed in CR No.2721 of 2011 to contend that there was no need to file any Court fee. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Guhla by placing reliance on case titled as Sunita Rani and another vs State of Punjab and another, 2015 (3) PLR 580 held that ad valorem Court fee was liable to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff and that the order of this Court in CR No.2721 of 2011 was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case, plaintiff in his cross-examination had admitted about the recovery of damages of Rs.5 lakhs and it was not clear from the order as to whether the amount of recovery claimed in the said suit was liquidated or unliquidated damages. Accordingly, while allowing the application, opportunity was granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee by the next date of hearing.