***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, in Civil Suit No. 2454 of 2019, whereby the application (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, Respondents No. 1 to 6-plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking recovery of mesne profits for the period from 17.06.2014 to 18.03.2019, along with interest, costs and consequential reliefs, in respect of building bearing Municipal No. B-XXIII-113/68/69, Market No. 2, Oswal Road, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, wherein the petitioners and proforma respondents-defendants were inducted as tenants. It was averred that the defendants were ordered to be evicted vide order dated 17.09.2014 and that the tenanted premises comprised 4,500 square feet on the first floor. The plaintiffs claimed that comparable commercial properties in the vicinity commanded rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per square foot per month, particulars whereof were furnished in the plaint, whereas the erstwhile contractual rent was merely Rs. 500 per month. It was further pleaded that, notwithstanding the eviction order, the defendants continued in unauthorised occupation until possession was delivered on 18.03.2019 during the appellate proceedings, upon withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought mesne profits for the period from 17.09.2014 to 18.03.2019, stated to comprise 54 months. The suit was instituted on 23.04.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law, as the plaintiffs have claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 110 per square foot per month for the premises measuring 4,500 square feet, aggregating to Rs. 2,67,30,000/-, yet affixed court fee of merely Rs. 50/-. It was argued that, in view of Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1887, the suit was required to be valued in accordance with the amount claimed, with payment of the requisite ad valorem court fee. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Naranjan Singh vs. Kartar Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 405, and Ranjit Kaur and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 686.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the present civil revision petition is not maintainable, as the issue of court fee essentially concerns the plaintiff and the Court, and the petitioners have neither suffered any prejudice nor been adversely affected by the impugned order. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharpoor Singh and Another vs. Lachhman Singh, Civil Revision No. 226 of 2017, decided on 17.01.2017, wherein it was held that an order pertaining to payment of court fee does not constitute a revisable order. On this premise, learned counsel urged that the present petition be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court considers it appropriate to examine the legal position enunciated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharpoor Singh and Another vs. Lachhman Singh (supra). In the said decision, the Coordinate Bench undertook a detailed examination of the maintainability of a revision petition challenging an order concerning payment of court fee, after considering the relevant judicial precedents rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Upon an exhaustive analysis of the applicable legal principles, the Coordinate Bench held as under:-

“It is pertinent to note here that plaintiff has tentatively assessed the damages for the purpose of court fee and accordingly, affixed 11,000/- as the court fee on the plaint. Plaintiff had also undertaken to pay court fee on the awarded amount at the time of passing the final judgment and decree by learned trial court. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that unless the trial is concluded, learned trial court would not be in a position to ascertain the exact amount to be granted to the plaintiff, because that would depend on the evidence to be led by the parties. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the defendant-plaintiff and the impugned order deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well.

Further, during the course of hearing, when confronted with as to what kind of prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the defendants by passing the impugned order, which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Thus, following the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vimla's case (supra). Shamsher Singh's case (supra) as well as by two Full Benches of this Court in Krishan Kumar Grover's case and Arjan Motor's case (supra), it is held that no revision petition before this Court would be maintainable at the hands of the defendants, unless the question of court fee involves the jurisdiction of court. It is so said, because the issue of court fee, including its alleged inadequacy. would be primarily between the plaintiff and the State.

Under such circumstances, defendant cannot be permitted for stalling the progress of the suit before the learned trial court, because he is not going to suffer any kind of prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of court fee paid by the plaintiff. Although it may not be an absolute rule in every given situation, yet this Court would normally insist asking the defendant to show his locus standi and right to file and maintain a revision petition before this Court, against an order passed by learned trial court, dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee, in the cases where the plaintiff is claiming unliquidated damages and the amount of court fee can always be fixed once the court quantifies the damages, asking the plaintiff to pay adequate court fee.”

6. In view of the foregoing discussion and the legal principles enunciated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharpoor Singh and Another vs. Lachhman Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition is not maintainable. The impugned order, relating to payment of court fee, does not warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable prejudice occasioned to them thereby. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

7. It is clarified that the observations herein are confined to the issue of maintainability and shall not prejudice the merits of the underlying dispute or the rights and contentions of either party.

8. In view of the final disposal of the principal proceedings, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Petition dismissed.

********