K.S. Garewal, J.

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. After the defendants appeared, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the relief claimed was under-valued.

4. 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 , Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh 2002 (1) R.C.R. 552, Iron Master (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank 2002 (2) R.C.R. 404, Naranjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ors. (2002) 130 P.L.R. 151 and Om Parkash v. Inderwati and Ors. (2002) 131 P.L.R. 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 Ors. 1993 C.C.C. 48 (P&H), and dismissed the application.

5. In this revision it has been argued that as per Section 7(i) of the Court-fees Act, in a suit for money including a suit for damages, compensation or arrears of maintenance etc. the amount of fee payable under the Court-fees Act would be according to the amount claimed. Therefore, sine the plaintiff had claimed a specific amount in the suit, the court-fees had to be affixed on the amount claimed. This had not been done by the plaintiff and for this reason the application moved by the petitioners-defendants should have been allowed and plaint rejected.

6. It may not be proper to go into the averments of the plaint as regards the actual claim for fear of prejudicing the trial Court but it does seem somewhat strange that the might of the State of Punjab is perturbed at a suit for damages filed by the plaintiff claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 2.00 crores approximately for malicious prosecution. The State asked for rejection of the plaint but in the circumstances of the present case that may not be the proper legal course. State has relied upon several authorities which shall now be considered.

7. In M.S. Chemical Industries Ltd. v. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited A.I.R. 1965 P & H 214, the plaintiffs when faced with a suit filed by the Bank, filed a counter suit for damages and claimed adjustment of the amount due to the Bank. The Court held that plaintiff company was not required to pay court-fee on the amount claimed as damages but on the amount actually claimed after adjusting the amount due to the Bank. This judgment can be no avail to the petitioner State.

8. Reliance was next placed on S. Rm. Ar. S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 245, wherein Supreme Court in India categorically held that the question of court-fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and the Courts decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. The plaintiff in this case had filed a suit falling under Section 7(iv) of the Court-Fees Act. It had further been held that value for court-fees and the value for the jurisdiction may no doubt be the same but value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff is of primary importance and it is on the basis of this value that the value of jurisdiction must be determined (not vice versa). While the general principles of law propounded by the Supreme Court would be applicable, the case of the plaintiff was entirely different to the present case. Reliance was also placed on Ram Narain Parsad v. Atul Chander Mitra (1995) 109 PLR 363 (S.C.), The Court following Sathappa Chettiar (supra) held that the averments made and the relief sought shall determine the character of the suit for the purpose of court-fees payable. What is stated in the written statement is not material in this regard. This was a case in which a suit for eviction had been filed on averments that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The Court held that the suit could only be valid as an eviction suit regardless of the fact that the respondent had denied the appellants title to the suit property.

9. In R & D Enterprises (Exports) and Anr. v. Air France and Anr. : A.I.R. 1998 Delhi 193, the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money and it was held that the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the amount claimed. It was also held that for simple money suits for money there was no provision or warrant to fix a tentative value for court-fees in the plaint which is possible for a suit for accounts or for partition or for administration or for winding-up accounts of a partnership. The Court was of the view that the basic difference between such type of cases and a money suit is that in the latter case there can only be one decree. Therefore, there was no question of affixing a tentative value in a money suit in which ad valorem court fees is payable on the sum claimed. This judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners.

10. Reliance was further placed on Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh (2002) 130 P.L.R. 215 (S.C.). In this case suit was filed for partition of movable and immovable properties. The Court held that court-fees has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed. The Court shall begin with an assumption, for the purposes of determining the court-fees payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. Yet an arbitrary valuation of the suit property had no basis at all for such valuation unless it had been made so as to evade payment of court-fees, or for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some Court which it did not have, or depriving the Court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have. In the present case the plaintiff had not fixed value for the purpose of court-fees to confer jurisdiction on some Court or to deprive a Court of jurisdiction. Therefore, this judgment shall have no applicability to the present case.

11. Lastly, the petitioner relied upon Naranjan Singh v, Kartar Singh and Ors.,4 (2002) 130 P.L.R. 151. This was a case in which the plaintiff had sued for mense profits which was in essence a claim for damages or compensation. The Court decided on the basis of decision of the Honble Apex Court in Gopalakrishna Pillai and Ors. v. Meenakshi Ayal and Ors. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 155, wherein it was authoritatively laid down that the plaintiff was required to claim past mense profits by valuing the claim approximately and paying court-fees thereon. So far as future mesne profits were concerned, fixed court-fee as provided under Section 11 of the Court-Fees Act would be payable.

12. The plaintiff-respondents suit as framed is similar to the suits for damages considered by this Court in Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh and Ors. 1993 CCC 48 (P&H) and Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar . In the former case the plaintiff had sued for damages on account of injuries suffered by him and valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1.00 lac while for the purpose of court-fees suit was valued at Rs. 500.00. In the later case also the plaintiff had sued for damages and compensation and affixed Rs. 50,00 as court-fees. In both cases tentative valuation of the suits for the purposes of court-fees was accepted. The opinion of this Court as expressed in the above two cases is that where the Court is unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and has been made by him. In such cases, Court had no other alternative than to accept the plaintiffs tentative valuation. In case of compensation, there is no objective standard available and indeed there never can be, which can help to determine the amount to which the plaintiff should value the relief claimed by him. It is the nature of things that valuation put by the plaintiff has to be tentative and cannot be disputed. Similarly, in the later case the view expressed in Hem Raj case (supra) was followed and petitions tentative valuation was accepted.

13. Considering all the aspects of the case and the law laid down on the point it is held that the petition is totally devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 10,000/-.