IN THE HI 122 Anil Kumar Dr. Hawa Sing CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, India is filed dated 20.11.2 Division), Pan Order 7 Rule (Annexure P2) 2. herein had fil from the peti were not quan notice dated 1 stated that defendant on along with Rs notice in the E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Vs. Singh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Garvit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PTA, J. Present petition under Art ledby the defendant seeking quas 11.2024 (Annexure P5) passed by t Panipat, whereby the application ule 11 CPC (Annexure P3) seekin P2) has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are d filed a suit dated 21.03.2023 (An petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, i quantified. Prior to filing of the suit, ed 15.02.2023 (Annexure P1), to t damages to the tune of Rs.50 on account of harassment and d h Rs.22,000/- as fees of legal no the above-mentioned suit, the de D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-321-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate Article 227 of the Constitution of quashing of the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge (Junior ion filed by the petitioner under eking rejection of the plaint/suit are that the plaintiff/respondent (Annexure P2) seeking damages ly, in the said suit, the damages suit, the plaintiff had issued a legal to the defendant in which he had s.50 lakh were payable by the nd defamation and mental pain, l notice dated 15.02.2023. Upon defendant appeared before the 7 of er ior er uit nt es es gal ad he in, on he SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned trial C dated ‘Nil’ (An ground of non being claimed P1) as well a maintainability learned Civil J P4) to the ab contents of t application. V learned Civil J application of 3. application of been dismisse plaintiff was re Rs.50 lakh cla Court Fees Ac damage shall b In the presen damages to th required to pa legal position ial Court and filed present applicati ’ (Annexure P3) seeking rejection o non-affixation of ad valorem Court ed by the plaintiff in his legal notic ell as the suit (Annexure P2); as bility of the above-mentioned suit ivil Judge, Panipat. The plaintiff file e above said application (Annexur of the plaint (Annexure P2) and n. Vide impugned order dated 20 ivil Judge, Junior Division, Panipat n of the defendant under Order 7 Ru Learned counsel for the n of the petitioner under Order 7 issed as the learned trial Court as required to file the ad valorem Co claimed by him. It is submitted t s Act, Court fees is payable in suit hall be computed in accordance with esent case, considering the fact th to the tune of Rs.50 lakh from the o pay ad valorem Court fees thereu tion the plaintiff was required to p ication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ion of the plaint inter alia on the ourt fee on the value of damages otice dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure as also on the ground of non- suit for want of jurisdiction of the filed reply dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure exure P3) thereby reiterating the and prayed for dismissal of the 20.11.2024 (Annexure P5), the pat has dismissed the above said 7 Rule 11 CPC. the petitioner submits that the er 7 Rule 11 CPC could not have urt failed to appreciate that the m Court fee as per the damages of ed that as per Section 7(i) of the suits for money including that of with the amount claimed therein. ct that the plaintiff had claimed the defendant/petitioner he was ereupon. Even as per established to pay the said ad valorem Court 7 PC he es re - he re he he he aid he ve he of he of in. ed as ed urt SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fee. It is accor aside. 4. deserved to b of action. It claiming dama made a comp Board in whic as such enviro Board upon constitute cau However, this learned trial C 5. 6. 7. petitioner/def lakh by way o 21.03.2023 fil position in la claimed in the the entire p quantified. Th ccordingly submitted that the impu It is further submitted t to be rejected also on the ground t It is contended that the plaintif amages merely on account of the mplaint against the respondent/pla hich the respondent was found to vironmental compensation of Rs.3 on the respondent. It is submitt cause of action for filing of th this aspect of the matter has also ial Court. No other argument is raise Heard. The first contention /defendant is that the respondent ay of damages in the suit for dam filed by the plaintiff against the n law that Court fee is to be ass the plaint. A perusal of the plaint ( e plaint no damages whatsoeve . The prayer clause in the plaint read pugned order deserves to be set d that the suit of the plaintiff nd that the plaintiff had no cause intiff had filed the present suit, the fact that the petitioner had t/plaintiff to the Pollution Control d to have committed offence and Rs.3,45,000/- was imposed by the mitted that the same does not f the present suit for damages. also not been considered by the aised on behalf of the petitioner. tion on part of the ent/plaintiff had claimed Rs.50 damages (Annexure P2) dated the petitioner. It is established assessed as per the damages int (Annexure P2) reveals that in oever have been claimed or reads as follows:- 7 set tiff se it, ad rol nd he ot . he SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. that the dama plaintiff in the the petitioner learned couns application un can be consid observations impugned ord “It is, therefore prayed that a damages of Rupees along with pe @ 15% P.A. till its realization of w may kindly be passed in favour of defendants with costs of the suit.” At this stage, it is contend amages sought from the petitioner the legal notice dated 15.02.2023 oner. However, I find no merit in unsel for the petitioner. It is well se n under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only nsidered. In this regard, I am in ag ns of the learned trial Court as order, the relevant extract of which “8…..In the present case, the per relief clause clearly shows that t any specific amount as damages merely stated that he has suffere of the defendant. Moreover in plaintiff has merely sought dec interest @ 15% per annum and ha of damages which are claimed b case, the plaintiff has claimed u damages, in the present case advolerum court fee as no amou plaintiff and merely damages a assessed by the Court at the time at a judgment and decree for ith pendatlite and future interest of which plaintiff found entitled ur of the plaintiff and against the suit.” tended on part of the petitioner ner have been quantified by the 023 (Annexure P1) served upon it in the said argument of the ll settled that for purposes of an only the averments in the plaint n agreement with the following s contained in Para 8 of the hich reads as follows:- perusal of the plaint as well as at the plaintiff has not claimed ages in the entire plaint and has ffered heavy loss due to the act in the prayer clause also the decree of damages alongwith nd has not specified any amount ed by him. Since in the present ed unquantified amount of the ase he is not required to pay mount has been claimed by the es are claimed which will be time of final decision of the case. 7 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fix 9. damages whe longer res int Supreme Cou Sharma” Law Hon’ble Supre fe At this stage, since the amount cannot be directed to pay advole amount of money. Moreover the specified the amount of dam 50,00,000/- in his legal notice dat him liable to pay advolerum cour at the time of deciding the applic CPC, merely the contents of plaint else. Thus, plaintiff in the presen fixed court fees at this stage bu determination of the suit, the determined by the Court, then th pay proper ad-valorem court assessed.” The issue regarding Court where damages have been quant s integra and it stands undispute Court in case of “State of Punjab Law Finder Doc Id # 1957286, wh preme Court have held that:- “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or Section 151 - Suit for recovery Rejection of plaint - Held, suit for d fees would be payable on amo Dismissal of application for reje deficient court fees set aside. (20 relied on.” ount is not certain, the plaintiff volerum court fees on uncertain r the fact that the plaintiff has damages to the tune of Rs. dated 15.01.2023 will not make court fees in the present suit as pplication under Order 7 Rule 11 laint are to be seen and nothing resent case was required to pay e but when at the time of final the specific amount if will be en the plaintiff will be bound to urt fees on the amount so urt-fees in a suit for recovery of uantified by the plaintiff, is no putedly settled by the Hon’ble njab and Others Vs. Dev Brat wherein Their Lordships of the 8, Order 7, Rule 11 read with ery as damages - Court fees - t for damages, ad valorem Court- amount of damages claimed - rejection of plaint on ground of . (2012) SCC Online P&H 13081, 7 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. defendant tha rejection of th the petitioner claiming dama made a compl Board in which as such enviro Board. The sa discarded as it plaint under O are to be cons by the petitio (Annexure P3 petitioner. 11. application is and try the pr petitioner to t were conduct is also liable Panipat. 12. It is the next contention t that the plaintiff had no cause of the plaint. To substantiate his con ner has contended that the plainti amages merely on account of the mplaint against the respondent/pla hich the respondent was found to vironmental compensation of Rs.3,4 e said argument of the petitione as it is again an established positio er Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the av considered. Moreover, a perusal of titioner under Order 7 Rule 11 r P3) shows that no such groun The other ground taken b n is that the learned trial Court has e present suit as complaint dated 0 to the Pollution Board at Karnal a ucted at Karnal. However, the said ble to be rejected as admittedly In view of the above, prese tion of learned counsel for the use of action which called for s contention, learned counsel for aintiff had filed the present suit, the fact that the petitioner had /plaintiff to the Pollution Control to have committed offence and s.3,45,000/- was imposed by the ioner is liable to be outrightly sition in law that for rejection of e averments made in the plaint l of the present application filed 11 read with Section 151 CPC round has been taken by the en by the petitioner in the said has no jurisdiction to entertain ed 04.09.2021was moved by the al and proceedings in the same said argument of the petitioner edly the plaintiff is residing at resent petition is dismissed. 7 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. 20.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document