SATISH KUMAR Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

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

(3.) 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, : AIR 1961 SC 1299 and Full Bench of this Court in Arjan Motors vs. Girdhara Singh and others, : 1978 PLJ 36 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.