NACHATTAR KAUR Vs. JARNAIL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 31/8/2017 (Annexure P4) whereby petitioner-plaintiff in a suit for damages of Rs.5,00,000.00 has been called upon to pay the ad valorem court fee.

(2.) Mr. Gagandeep Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that as per the averments made in para no.28 of the plaint, an undertaking has been given to pay the ad valorem court fee as and when required by the Court as it is too far fetched to affix the court fee. In support of the contention, he relies upon a decision rendered by this Court in Subhash Chander Goel vs. Harvind Sagar, 2003 AIR (Punjab) 248.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decisions rendered by this Court in M.S. Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., reported in 1956 AIR (Punjab) 214, Ranjit Kaur and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, reported in 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 686, Hem Raj vs. Harchet Singh, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48, Manjeet Singh vs. Beant Sharma, reported in 2012(44) RCR (Civil) 118, Jiwan Kumar Modi vs. Nand Kishore Bhandari, reported in 2014(9) RCR (Civil ) 2197, R.S. Malik vs. Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS and others, reported in 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 76 and State Bank of India and others vs. Aruna Garg, CR No. 1758 of 2018, decided on 30/11/2018 to contend that provision of Order VII Rule 1 of CPC has to be strictly construed.