SUBHASH CHANDER GOEL Vs. HARVIND SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 5-2-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner in which he has claimed that the plaintiff-respondent was under a legal obligation to deposit Court-fee as required by Section 7(i) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (for brevity the 1870 Act) and, therefore while dismissing the application has held that the judgment of this Court in the case of Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh, 1993 Civil Court Case 48 applies to the controversy raised and dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Shri K. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner who has argued that perusal of Section 7 of the 1870 Act would show that only in cases covered by sub-section (iv) of Section 7 liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of Court-fee. According to the learned counsel no such liberty is available in respect of clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 7 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commercial Avitation and Travel Company v. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, AIR 1988 SC 1636. The learned counsel has pointed out that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is covered by clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act as damages or compensation in lieu of maligning his reputation to the tune of Rs. two lacs have been claimed. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the view taken in Hem Raj's case (supra) is not the correct view and is, therefore, liable to be reconsidered.

(3.) Shri Anuj Arora, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the question concerning the Court-fee is a lis between the plaintiff and the State and the Court has the power to allow the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee at any stage. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Niwas v. Rakesh Kumar, (1982) 84 Pun LR 9 and a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Khema v. Bhagwan, 1996 (2) Recent Revenue Reports 56 . The learned counsel has further pointed out that such an objection could be raised in a suit filed before the Court of limited jurisdiction but in a suit filed in a Court of unlimited jurisdiction valuation disclosed by the plaintiff should be taken as correct. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sujir Keshav Nayak v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak, 1992 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 172