The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief claimed under section 24 (d) of the Court-fees Act should be valued based on the advantage gained or injury avoided, and in cases of this nature, the reasonable value of the relief will be one year's salary.

( 1 ) IT is not disputed that the section applicable to the facts of the case is section 24 (d) of the Court-fees Act. A Bench of this Court in jabbar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1) (1969) I An. W. R. 411i has laid down the principles on which suits falling under section 24 (d) of the Court fee Act have to be valued. It was held that the relief sought by the plaintiff has to be valued on the basis of the advantage he would gain or the injury or loss he would avoid.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff s suit in this case is for a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 26th November, 1962 passed by the defendant-company Is illegal and invalid and for the consequential relief of injunction directing the defendant- company to reinstate the plaintiff with all benefits and for recover/ of an amount of Rs. 303-67 p. the suit has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 753-67 p. (Rs. 450 plus Rs. 303-67) under sections 24 (d) and 20 of the Andhra Court Fees Act.

( 3 ) THE office has taken an objection the that valuation put by (he plaintiff on the relief of declaration Is too low, and that the valution should be the amount that the plaintiff would get for the rest of the period till his retirament after he is reinstated.

( 4 ) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case it is not possible to determine exactly the advantage that the plaintiff would gain by getting a declaration. He, therefore, contends that this is a suit which is Incapable of valuation, and also no standards or guidelines have been laid down as to valuation in cases of this nature. He furthe contends that in such cases the valuation put by the plaintiff has to be accepted. He relied upon Narayana Chetti V. Pellappan (2) a. I. R, 1938 Madras 887 (F. B.) and Jitendra nath V. Badurya Municipality (3) A. I. R. 1967 Calcutta 423. The decisions relied upon by the plaintiff are not applicable. In the first case, it was a suit for accounts which empowered the plaintiff to make a valuation and did not empower the court to change that valuation. The second case also is not applicable to the facts of the Instant case.

( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that It cannot be said that the plaintiff would remain In service till the date of his retirement and therefore that standard cannot be adopted for purpose of valuation of the plaint. There is some force in this contention, but at the same time the value given by the plaintiff also is very low. According to the provisions of section 24 (d), the relief claimed can be valued by a Court. In a case of this nature, the reasonable value of the relief will be one year s salary. The plaintiff is directed to value the plaint on this basis and pay the court-fee. Time for payment of court-fee two months.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document