In CR-5552-2017 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- When status of indigent person has been denied to respondent, he has to make payment of ad valorem Court fee, holds P&H HC
Justice Archana Puri [25-05-2023]

 

Read Order: Kailash Chand And Another Vs. Gian Chand On 25 May, 2023 - Legitquest

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, May 27, 2023: Directing the respondent-plaintiff to pay the requisite ad valorem Court fee, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a revision petition challenging an Order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the petitioners-defendants, for rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

“Therefore, it is apparent that it is the suit for seeking damages of specified amount and therefore, as per Section 7(i) of the ibid Act, the ad valorem Court fee is payable, according to the amount claimed”,Justice Archana Puri held.

Initially, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioners-defendants for recovery of damages, to the tune of Rs 10 lakh, while asserting himself to be an indigent person. However, after adducing the evidence, the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC was dismissed and thereafter, the case was further adjourned for affixation of the Court fee by the respondent-plaintiff. 

The respondent-plaintiff challenged the order of denial of indigence status, but however, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Considering the same, the petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for seeking rejection of the plaint, as ad valorem Court fee had not been deposited, upon the amount, for which the suit had been filed.

The petitioner contended that the Court fee was required to be deposited by the respondent-plaintiff. On the contrary, the respondent-plaintiff submitted that since it was a case of recovery of damages for malicious prosecution, therefore, there was no necessity of affixation of Court fee.

The Bench made it clear that the payment of the extent of Court fee is regulated by the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 7,prescribes the procedure to compute the amount of fee payable in a suit. 

“Where the suit is for money, including suits for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically, then Section 7(i) lays down, as to how the amount of Court fee payable, is required to be calculated. Thus, it is evident that whenever the suit is for money, the Court fee is payable according to the amount claimed”, the Bench held.

Noticing the fact that the status of being indigent person was denied to the respondent-plaintiff, the Bench opined that the specified amount was intended to be recovered as damages and the plaint categorically revealed that above case amounted to malicious prosecution of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs10 lakh as compensation and damages, from the defendants for their illegal and false acts. 

“Since, the status of indigent person has been denied to the respondent-plaintiff, in the given circumstances, considering the specified amount of damages, sought by the respondent-plaintiff, it is required to make the payment of ad valorem Court fee, as ordered”,the Bench observed.

Thus, holding that the lower Court had erroneously dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Bench allowed the revision petition.