Liberty to Tentatively Value Relief Exists Only in Section 7(iv) Suits, Not for Damages Claims Under Section 7(i) : Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Once a quantified amount of damages is claimed, ad valorem court fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory — mere use of the word ‘tentative’ cannot alter the legal character of the suit” — In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when a plaintiff claims a specific monetary amount as damages, they are bound to pay ad valorem court fee under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, irrespective of whether the amount is described as “tentative.”

Justice Harkesh Manuja set aside an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Khanna, which had dismissed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for undervaluation. The Court held that the Trial Court misapplied its discretion by allowing a mere nominal court fee of ₹100 in a ₹2 crore damages suit for malicious prosecution, thereby violating the statutory mandate under the Court Fees Act.

“Liberty to Tentatively Value Relief Exists Only in Section 7(iv) Suits, Not for Damages Claims Under Section 7(i)”

The dispute arose out of a suit for recovery of ₹2 crore as damages for malicious prosecution, mental agony, loss of reputation and harassment, filed by the plaintiff (respondent) against the petitioner. The plaintiff affixed only a court fee of ₹100, asserting that the valuation was “tentative” and subject to the court’s final determination. The Trial Court allowed this, observing that “the actual valuation of court fees will depend upon the merits of the case as per evidence led by the parties.”

However, the High Court found this reasoning to be legally untenable and held that the suit was “plainly and squarely covered under Section 7(i)”, which governs money suits involving a specific claim.

Justice Manuja ruled:

“In such circumstances, the suit is apparently covered under Clause 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is liable to deposit court fee on the amount claimed in the suit.”

Supreme Court Precedent Reaffirmed: Tentative Valuation Does Not Apply to Quantified Money Claims

Referring to the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, the High Court clarified the distinction between Section 7(i) and Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. The apex court had clearly held that:

“Once the suit in question was a money suit for compensation and damages falling under Clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, ad valorem court fees would be payable on the amount claimed.”

Quoting extensively from Paragraphs 20 and 21 of that judgment, the High Court emphasized that tentative valuation is only available under Section 7(iv), and only for specific categories of suits like partition, accounts, or declarations — not for straightforward claims of quantified monetary compensation, as was the case here.

“Use of the Word ‘Tentative’ Cannot Cloak a Concrete Monetary Claim” — Court Applies Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227

The Court found that the Trial Court had wrongly accepted a tentative court fee despite the presence of a clear claim for ₹2 crore, amounting to a jurisdictional error warranting correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Manuja held:

“The present is not a case where the prayer made in the plaint is to the effect that damages be awarded as quantified by the court after considering evidence... Rather, a specific claim of ₹2 crore has been made and ad valorem court fee is mandatory.”

In light of this, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to prevent a statutory bypass, and directed the plaintiff to deposit full court fee within one month, failing which the plaint shall stand rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Courts Cannot Permit Strategic Under-Valuation of High-Stake Claims

The judgment in Darshan Singh v. Dharminder Singh delivers a clear and categorical message: plaintiffs cannot escape payment of proper court fee by labeling their specific monetary claims as “tentative”. The decision reinforces the principle that statutory obligations under the Court Fees Act cannot be diluted through judicial leniency.

By clarifying the applicability of Section 7(i) and reaffirming that money suits for damages must bear court fee commensurate with the amount claimed, the ruling brings much-needed discipline and consistency in valuation of reliefs in civil suits.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025