Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Defamation Suit Filed With Quantified Damages Amounts To 'Money Suit'; Plaintiff Required To Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fee: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav
17 Jun 2022 3:15 PM GMT
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Kurukshetra Univerity, bebars Law Student, 307 IPC, Taking Exam, Attendance Shortage, PH HC, Upholds Its Decision, Justice Sudhir Mittal, section 307 IPC, attempt to murder,

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suit claiming quantified damages for alleged defamation amounts to a 'money suit' and hence, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed.

The observation was made by Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta while dealing with a revision petition against order of the Trial Court directing plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee in accordance with her claim for the recovery of Rs.10 lac for alleged defamatory language used by the defendant against her.

The plaintiff submitted that she is ready to affix the proper court fee on the plaint at the time of final decision of the civil suit filed by her against the defendant and therefore, the impugned order requiring her at the very initial stage in the suit, to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the amount of the damages claimed by her, is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set-aside.

The bench observed,

"Plaintiff filed the above-said civil suit against the defendant for seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.10 lac as damages on account of the defamatory language used by him to tarnish her image and reputation. Thus, the plaintiff has quantified the amount sought to be recovered from the defendant as damages and it being so, the said civil suit falls within the category of money suits."

Reference was then made to Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 which provides that in the suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation etc), the amount of the court-fee payable, shall be computed according to the amount claimed.
Accordingly, it was held,
"In these circumstances, it is quite explicit that the plaintiff is required to pay/affix the ad-valorem court fee on the plaint in accordance with her claim for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 10 lac from the defendant as damages."

As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the court concluded that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

Resultantly, the revision petition being sans any merit is dismissed.

Case Title: Mrs. Manjit Kaul Versus Mr. Anil Kumar

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 155

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Next Story