STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGDIP SINGH CHOWHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Punjab and 15 others have filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dated May 12, 2004 to challenge the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioners (defendants before the trial Court) under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it had been under-valued for the purposes of court-fees.

(2.) JAGDIP Singh Chowhan has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,01,43,000.00, Rs. 2.00 crores has been claimed as damages for malicious prosecution and Rs. 1.43 lacs as expenses. The suit has been valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,01,43,000.00. However, value for purposes of court-fees has been assessed at Rs. 1.93 lacs. Out of this Rs. 1.43 lacs is for recovery of expenses and Rs. 50,000.00, is the tentative value of damages. Accordingly, court-fees affixed is Rs. 3900/- and Rs. 2850/-, respectively on the two reliefs. Court-fees of Rs. 19.50 has been affixed for future damages. The plaintiff has undertaken to deposit the requisite court-fees on the amount of Rs. 2.00 crores, claimed as damages, as and when the Court would deem it fit and proper.

(3.) THE sole question to be considered is whether in circumstances where the valuation given by the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction being Rs. 2,01,43,000.00, the value for the purposes of court-fees could be only Rs. 1.93 lacs. In other words can a suit for damages where the plaintiff is claiming Rs. 2.00 crores as damages be valued for the purpose of court-fees at Rs. 1.93 lacs. The learned Civil Judge considered Sakinabi v. Zeenathunnisa, AIR 1999 Karnataka 268, Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh, 2002(I) AIR Karnatka 552, M/s. Iron Master (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 404, Naranjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 405, and Om Parkash v. Inderwati and others, 2002(2) PLR 353, but distinguished these judgments on the ground that none of these were cases in which the plaintiff had filed a suit for damages. The Court relied upon Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 CCC 48 (P&H), and dismissed the application.