C.R. No.2542 of 2005 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2542 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.08.2009
Reena Devi .....Petitioner
Versus
Shri Ram Karan alias Ram Kumar ...Respondent
Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yashpal, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The revision is against an order passed by the trial Court on
an application moved at the instance of the defendant under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC that the plaintiff shall affix ad valorem court fee for
relief of marriage expenses of Rs.3 lacs, that the plaintiff had claimed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not very sure
whether the suit is still pending or whether it has been disposed of.
The direction issued by the lower Court is appropriate for, a claim for
certain sum of money, whatever be the basis, shall be required to be
valued under Section 7(ii) of the Court Fee Act and ad valorem court
fee shall be paid thereon. If the plaintiff has any justification for non-
payment, it can be only on the grounds which are mentioned under
Order 33 Rule 1 CPC. Normally a person who is in indigent
C.R. No.2542 of 2005 (O&M) -2-
circumstances and is unable to pay court fee, shall seek the permission
of the Court to proceed on such a basis. Apart from an oral assertion
that the plaintiff is not in a position to pay court fee, there is nothing
on record to suggest that the plaintiff is unable to pay the court fee.
2. Reserving to the plaintiff-petitioner such liberty to apply
under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, the revision petition is dismissed and the
order of the lower Court is confirmed. No costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 12, 2009
Pankaj*