RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to an order, dated 30.8.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby on an application, filed by the respondent-defendant, the petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to affix ad-valorem court fee, on the total amount of Rs. 4.27 lacs, as claimed.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that in a suit for rendition of accounts, any amount, stated to be due to a plaintiff, is a mere approximate estimate and, therefore, cannot form the basis for affixing Court fee. It is submitted that the amount of Rs. 4.27 lacs, mentioned by the petitioner, is an approximate estimate of the amount that the petitioner-plaintiff may receive in the eventuality of his suit for rendition of accounts being decreed. Reliance is placed upon M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal, 1988(2) PLR 288 and Kuldip Thapar v. Babita Nayar, 2004(2) RCR(Civil) 800 : 2004(2) CCC 673. The learned trial Court has, however, accepted the averments in the plaint as the final claim of the petitioner and directed affixation of ad-valorem court fee. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that as a plaintiff has calculated the relief due, he is required to affix ad-valorem court fee. It is submitted that as the plaintiff has valued his claim at Rs. 4.27 lacs, the learned trial Court rightly directed him to pay ad-valorem court fee. Reliance is placed upon Bachni Devi v. Tej Ram and others, 1993 (Suppl) CCC 393 (P&H) and Shri Banarsi Lal v. Shri Kishan Chand and others, 1990(1) PLR 439.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;