JASPAL SINGH AND ORS. Vs. GURBINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by defendant No. 1, is to the order dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure P1), passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sangrur, whereby the application, filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not affixed ad valorem Court fees, has been rejected. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is that the suit was for unliquidated damages and compensation could not be. assessed till the final disposal of the suit by the Court. At the time of decision, the Court would decide the damages and the Court fees could be paid at that point of time. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2005 139 PunLR 650 and Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh, 1993 1 CivCC 48 .

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the suit was filed for unliquidated damages and compensation to the extent of damages on account of causing grievous injury to the plaintiff by the petitioner defendant on account of a gun shot injury which led to the amputation of his left hand. In such circumstances, Court fees of Rs. 50/- was affixed and the relief was claimed for unliquidated damages to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs. Resultantly, the application was filed for rejection.

(3.) The maintainability of the revision itself, firstly, comes under a cloud in view of the observations of the Apex Court in Rathnavarmaraja v. Vimla, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299 wherein it was noticed that entertaining petitions preferred before the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and stalling progress in the suits for trial could not be appreciated. The Court Fee Act, 1870 was primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State and not to give leverage to the contesting party to obstruct trial of the proceedings. Relevant observations read as under: