ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) IN these four revision petitions the only question for consideration is what is the Court fee payable on the plaint. Suits were filed in different Courts by different parties. But the defendant in each case is the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. O. S. 59/71 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad West which has given rise to C. R. P. 2157/75 is a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity service of the plaintiff. C. R. P. No. 59/76 arises out of suit O. S. 250/74 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam for a declaration that a notice issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Defendant Board is illegal and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the supply of service. Similarly O. S. 1324/74 on the file of the District Munsifs Court Visakhapatnam has given rise to C. R. P. No. 49/76 which is a suit for declaring that notice of disconnection is illegal and for a mandatory injunction directing the restoration of supply to the Plaintiffs establishment. Lastly O. S. 232/74 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Visakhapatnam which corresponds to C. R. P. 68/76 is a suit for declaring that inspection proceedings of the defendant and disconnection of power is illegal and the service connection should be restored. In all these cases one of the contentions raised in the written statement was that the Court-fee paid was not proper. The plaintiff in each case valued the relief for injunction or declaration as the case may be, at a notional value of Rs. 203. 00 in all the suits and Rs. 500. 00 in one suit and paid Court- fee on that amount. In each case the question of Court-fee was considered in the first instance by the Court below and it was found that the Court-fee paid was correct. These revision petitions have been filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board as against the said orders. The contention of the Board is that the Court is entitled to value the relief and is not bound to accept the notional valuation placed by the plaintiff. According to the various decisions of this Court, the proper way to value the relief is to ascertain the advantage gained by the plaintiff if the relief asked for is granted or the loss caused to the plaintiff if it is not granted and value the relief accordingly. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent-plaintiff in each of these cases is that he is entitled to choose his own valuation and pay Court-fee on that value.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Court-fees Act. Section 24 of the Court-fees Act deals with suit for declaration which do not fall under S. 25. Section 24 (d) which is the relevant provision provides that in a suit for a declaration with or without consequential relief, not falling under S. 25 in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court whichever is higher. Section 26 deals with suits for injunction and relevant Cl. is 26 (c) which is as follows :-"in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. "

( 3 ) IT is seen from these two provisions which are almost similar that they apply to cases whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not or has a market value or not. IN either case the Court fee to be paid on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. It follows that if the Court is not satisfied with the value placed on the relief by the plaintiff it is entitled to val

Click Here to Read the rest of this document