B L KAPOOR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. BALBIR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition filed by the petitionerplaintiff is to the order dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby the petitioner -plaintiff has been directed to furnish proper Court fee on the plaint in view of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint by the defendant.

(2.) THE reasoning given by the trial Court is that the suit for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs as damages has been filed but proper Court fee has not been paid. Reliance has been placed upon R.S.Malik Vs. Krishan Mohan, 2010 1 CivCC 388. Even though word 'tentatively' had been added but in view of the fact that the claim was for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs as damages, the application was allowed. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others Vs. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal, 1988 AIR(SC) 1636.

(3.) WHILE issuing notice of motion, this Court granted stay of operation of impugned order but on 8.7.2013 it was clarified that suit should proceed. A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs on account of damages for defaming the name and reputation of the plaintiff hospital and its officials by making false accusations. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff hospital was one of the oldest hospital in Ludhiana and to discipline its employees, certain steps had been taken. Sn Administrator had been appointed and certain old employees had adopted uncooperative attitude towards change in the administration and applications were filed by the defendant claiming himself to be an RTI activist for seeking information about the hospital from various departments under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The State Information Commission had declined the request of the defendants to provide information pertaining to the hospital on the ground that it was run by a private society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 and was not getting any financial aid from the Government. The issue was upheld by this Court also vide order dated 29.3.2011. Thereafter, fresh application was filed which was also rejected. After having failed to get information, the defendants had got certain news items published in the news papers by twisting the factual position much to the detriment of the plaintiff hospital that the hospital was being run in an unauthorised manner on the Government land. The land has been leased out to the society for which the lease deed could not be executed by the concerned department and the School of Nursing run by the plaintiff was also sought to be defamed by publishing that it was an unapproved and unauthorised institute imparting education. Accordingly, a tentative claim of Rs. 20 lacs as damages was sought by filing the suit against the defendant. Court fee of Rs. 49,300/ - was payable but since damages for the omissions and commissions of defendant were tentative, the Court fee of Rs. 2500/ - was affixed for the time being at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff undertook to pay actual Court fee on the amount of damages actually assessed. Resultantly, the suit was filed and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as noticed was filed by the defendant and the same was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground taken in the suit itself, that the plaintiff would deposit the Court fee on the amount actually assessed.