CNR No. HRGR02-000414-2020 1 CIS No.
CS-297-2020
Gursaranlal Awasthi versus Secretary Home Department & others
Present: Ms. Kirti Sejwal, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Neha Sirohi, Government Pleader for the defendant No. 1.
Shri Rishi Raj Yadav, Advocate for the applicant/defendant No. 2.
This order pertains to an application filed by Defendant No. 2
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking
dismissal/rejection of the plaintiff’s suit on the grounds of lack of cause of
action and non-payment of requisite ad valorem court fee. In the alternative,
Defendant No. 2 prays that the plaintiff be directed to pay the ad valorem court
fee on the entire amount claimed as recovery, failing which the suit be
dismissed.
2. The contentions of Defendant No. 2, as set out in the application,
are summarized as follows:
a. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, has
concealed material facts, and has provided false information in the plaint.
b. No cause of action arose on the dates mentioned in the plaint
(18.05.2009, 11.01.2010, 29.03.2017, 17.11.2017, 18.04.2019, and 24.09.2019)
to justify the filing of the suit.
c. The plaintiff was acquitted in a criminal case under Sections 498A,
406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) arising from FIR No. 72 dated
18.05.2009, filed by Defendant No. 2, as the prosecution failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt. A Criminal Revision (CRR No. 729/2018) is
pending against the plaintiff before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana.
d. The plaintiff’s suit is false, concocted, and lacks a cause of action.
e. The plaintiff has not paid the ad valorem court fee on the entire
recovery amount claimed, as required under the Court Fees Act, rendering the
suit liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. The plaintiff has opposed the application, submitting that the suit is
filed for damages on account of malicious prosecution. The plaintiff contends
that the court fee will be paid as per the value of any decree awarded by the
Court, should damages be granted.
(Manish Kumar),
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gurugram. 13.08.2025
CNR No. HRGR02-000414-2020 2 CIS No.CS-297-2020
Gursaranlal Awasthi versus Secretary Home Department & others
4. Upon perusal of the application, the plaintiff’s reply, and the
material on record, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which provides for the rejection of a plaint on specific
grounds, including lack of cause of action and non-payment of requisite court
fee.
On the Ground of Lack of Cause of Action
5. The learned counsel for Defendant No. 2 contends that the
plaintiff’s suit lacks a cause of action, alleging that the plaint is based on false
and concocted facts. The plaintiff’s suit is for damages arising out of alleged
malicious prosecution, stemming from the criminal case initiated by Defendant
No. 2 (FIR No. 72 dated 18.05.2009 under Sections 498A, 406, and 506 IPC).
The plaintiff was acquitted in the said criminal case, and a revision petition
(CRR No. 729/2018) is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana.
6. For a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish
that: (a) the defendant instituted a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff; (b)
the proceeding ended in favor of the plaintiff; (c) the defendant acted without
reasonable and probable cause; (d) the defendant acted with malice; and (e) the
plaintiff suffered damage as a result. The plaint, as filed, prima facie discloses
these elements, as it is based on the plaintiff’s acquittal in the criminal case
initiated by Defendant No. 2 and alleges malicious intent. The pendency of the
revision petition before the High Court does not negate the fact of acquittal at
the trial court level, which forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. Whether the
plaintiff can substantiate these claims is a matter for trial and cannot be
determined at this stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, where the Court is
required to consider only the averments in the plaint and not the defense or
evidence.
7. The contention of Defendant No. 2 that no cause of action arose on
the dates mentioned in the plaint and that the plaintiff has concealed material
facts does not suffice to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The
plaint discloses a cause of action based on the alleged malicious prosecution,
and the veracity of the plaintiff’s claims or the defense of Defendant No. 2 (e.g.,
(Manish Kumar),
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gurugram. 13.08.2025
CNR No. HRGR02-000414-2020 3 CIS No.CS-297-2020
Gursaranlal Awasthi versus Secretary Home Department & others
harassment or concealment of facts) is a matter to be tested during trial. At this
stage, the Court finds that the plaint is not barred by law for want of a cause of
action.
On the Ground of Non-Payment of Ad Valorem Court Fee
8. The learned counsel for Defendant No. 2 further contends that the
plaintiff has not paid the ad valorem court fee on the entire amount claimed as
recovery, as required under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that this renders the
suit liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC.
9. The plaintiff’s suit is for damages on account of malicious
prosecution. As per Section 6 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, read with the
relevant provisions of the local amendments, in a suit for damages where the
amount is unascertained or contingent (such as in a claim for malicious
prosecution), the plaintiff is entitled to value the relief sought at a notional
amount and pay the court fee accordingly. The plaintiff has clarified in the reply
that the court fee will be paid as per the value of any decree awarded by the
Court for damages. This position is consistent with the legal principle that in
suits for unliquidated damages, the plaintiff may assign a tentative value to the
claim, subject to adjustment if the Court awards a specific amount.
10. The plaint, as filed, does not appear to be deficient in court fee
payment at this stage, as the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court
fee and jurisdiction. No material has been placed on record by Defendant No. 2
to demonstrate that the court fee paid is patently inadequate or contrary to the
provisions of the Court Fees Act. The objection regarding non-payment of ad
valorem court fee is, therefore, not sustainable at this juncture. If the plaintiff
succeeds and a decree for damages is passed, the plaintiff will be liable to pay
additional court fee as per the decreed amount, as per the provisions of the
Court Fees Act. On this point, the learned counsel for the plaintiff rightly placed
reliance upon judgment titled as Amandeep Sidhu v. Ultratech Cement
Limited & others MANU/PH/3125/2016 in which it is held as follows:-
“In a suit for damages for compensation for
defamation or malicious prosecution- Ad valorem court fees
cannot be ascertained at initial stage and suit may be
(Manish Kumar),
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gurugram. 13.08.2025
CNR No. HRGR02-000414-2020 4 CIS No.CS-297-2020
Gursaranlal Awasthi versus Secretary Home Department & others
entertained on thie undertaking of the plaintiff for the
payment of ad-valorem court fee at the decree amount.”
11. I have gone through the judgments in case titled as Dr. Group
Captain Hem Raj Garg v. Punjab Relief Society & another RSA No.353 of
2016 (O&M); Mrs. Manjit Kaul v. Mr. Anil Kumar CR No.2123 of 2022
D/d. 01.06.2022; Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Pooja & Anr. CM(M) 106/2021
&CM No.4573/2021 & Dinesh Kumar v. Lekh Raj & Ors. CM(M) 127/2021
& CM No.5389/2021 relied upon by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 2
but the same are on different facts and circumstances.
Conclusion:-
12. In view of the above, the application filed by Defendant No. 2
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is found to be without merit. The plaint discloses
a cause of action for malicious prosecution, and the issue of court fee does not
warrant rejection of the plaint at this stage. The contentions of Defendant No. 2
regarding the falsity of the plaintiff’s claims or concealment of facts are matters
to be adjudicated during trial after evidence is led by both parties.
13. Accordingly, the application dated 02.02.2022 filed by Defendant
No. 2 is hereby dismissed. The suit shall proceed as per the schedule fixed by
this Court.
Now, case is adjourned to 20.11.2025 for filing written statement
on behalf of defendant No. 1. Fresh notice to defendants No. 3 & 4 be issued for
date fixed. The Ahland is also directed to properly arrange the case file which is
at present in haphazard manner.
Date of Order: 13.08.2025 (Manish Kumar),
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Sushil Gurugram. (UID No. HR0367)
Stenographer-II
Note: All the pages of this order have been duly checked and signed
by me.
(Manish Kumar)
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gurugram (UID No. HR0367)
13.08.2025
(Manish Kumar),
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gurugram. 13.08.2025
