IN THE COURT OF SUMITRA KADIAN,
(UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION CODE No. HR0369) CIVIL JUDGE
(JUNIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM.
Date of Application:-26.03.2019
Date of Order: 26.11.2019
CIS No.CS-6241-2018 CNR No.HRGR-02-004872-2018
Ganesh Awasthi & Ors.
Secretary, Home Department, Haryana & ors.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT
Present Shri Pardeep Nawani, Advocate for the plaintiff
Shri Rishi Raj Yadav, advocate for defendant no. 2
This order shall dispose of an application filed by defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint.
2. It has been pleaded by the applicant/defendant No.2 that plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and have concealed material facts. No cause of action arose to plaintiffs on 18.05.2019, 11.01.2010, 29.03.2017, 17.11.2017, 03.08.2017 and 02.06.2018. The plaintiffs harassed the defendant No.2 and she filed complaint before police. After submission of final report, charges were framed under section 498-A, 406, 506 of IPC. The plaintiffs were acquitted as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal Revision petition No.729 of 2018 is pending before Hon’ble High Court . The plaintiffs have not paid ad valorem Court fee on the entire amount sought to be recovered. They are bound to pay ad valorem Court fee of Rs.2,00,000/-. With these pleadings, she has filed the present application.
3. The plaintiffs have not filed reply to this application and their counsel has addressed oral arguments.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the case file thoroughly.
5. Vide this application, the defendant No.2 has sought rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and have concealed material facts and have not paid ad-valorum court fees. In order to decide this application, it is necessary to refer to facts of the present suit. In the present suit, plaintiffs have sought recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of damages for malicious prosecution. As per the version of the plaintiffs, defendant Shalini filed a false complaint regarding demand of dowry, harassment and misappropriation of ‘Istridhan’ against the plaintiffs. On the basis of complaint of defendant No.2, FIR No.72 of 2009 was registered under-section 498-A, 406, 506 of IPC at police station : Sector-65, Gurugram. The plaintiffs were sent behind bars in said FIR which resulted in tarnishing of their reputation. Vide judgment dated 29.03.2017, plaintiffs were acquitted. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.11.2017. With these pleadings, the plaintiffs have filed present suit.
6. The contents of the plaint disclose cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. The questions: whether the plaintiffs were acquitted as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the plaintiffs were acquitted giving benefit of doubt and the affect of acquittal on the fate of present suit, shall be considered at the time of final decision. No doubt, it would not be appropriate to decide the present suit finally before the decision of CR No.729 of 2018 by Hon’ble High Court. But filing of criminal revision by the defendant No.2 does not extinguish the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs.
7. The defendant No.2 has also sought rejection of plaint on the ground of non-payment of ad-valorem court fees. The plaintiffs have sought recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution. The version of respondents plaintiffs is that they shall deposit the court fees before the Court as and when amount of damages is determined by the Court. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have not mentioned the details of Rs.30,00,000/-, claimed in head-note and relief clause of the plaint. It means that amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has been claimed by the plaintiff tentatively. It is settled legal position that court-fee is payable and the valuation is to be determined on the basis of the allegations made, and the reliefs claimed in the plaint. As the plaintiff has not provided the details of damages sought to be recovered, the amount of compensation cannot be ascertained at this stage. However, in case the suit of the plaintiff succeeds, then they shall be liable to pay court fees on the amount of damages. The plaintiffs have given undertaking in this regard. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment pronounced in the case of Manpreet Singh versus Gurmail Singh, 2016(3) PLR 751 of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Amandeep Sindhu versus M/s Ultratech Cement Limited and others, CR No.5893 of 2016, date of decision 15.09.2016 of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the application is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Court: ( Sumitra Kadian )
Dated.26.11.2019. Civil Judge(Jr. Division),
Note: All the four pages of this order have been checked and signed by me.
( Sumitra Kadian )
Civil Judge(Jr. Division),
UID Code No. HR0369
Present Shri Pardeep Nawani, Advocate for the plaintiffs Shri Rishi Raj Yadav, advocate for defendant no. 2 Arguments have been heard. Order has been pronounced.
Vide separate order of even date, the application of under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint has been dismissed. Now, case is adjourned to 03.02.2020 for filing written-statement by the defendant No.2. Notice to defendants No.1, 3 and 4 be issued for the date fixed.
Sumitra Kadian )
Civil Judge(Jr. Division),
UID Code No. HR0369
Date of order:-26.11.2019