M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 1988 in regard to the maintainability of the suit and payment of Court fee arising out of the plea taken in the written statement by the defendant, the suit was not maintainable as well as the Court fee paid was inadequate.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the impugned order may be stated briefly and they are as follows The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain bill submitted by the 1 st defendant-Karnataka electricity Board through its Assistant executive Engineer, City Division No. 2, belgaum, was a nullity and therefore not enforceable. The plaintiff a consumer of electrical energy supplied by the 1st defendant Board valued his relief at rs. 1000/- and paid Court fee thereon in terms of Sec. 24 (d) of the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The defendants raised the two plsas set-out earlier in the course of this order inter alia on the ground that the substantive relief prayed for in the suit was to extinguish the right of the Board to collect rs. 12,17,992-50 billed for energy supplied and therefore the Court fee payable thereon should really be on the value of the bill in accordance with Sec. 38 of the act and not under Sec. 24 (d) of the Act. It also contended that the Civil Court's jurisdiction must bs deemed to be barred because the plaintiff had an alternative remedy under the Regulations framed under the Electricity Supply Act. The trial Court formulated these two questions as points 1 and 2 and they areas Jollows: (1) Whether his Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the allegations in para 2 of the written statement-cum objections to interim Application No. 1 filed by defendant No. 2 ? (2) Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff-Company on the reliefs claimed by it is proper ? it answered both the questions against the defendants. Therefore, the present revision petition.

( 3 ) IN this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of setra Kalamma v Appayanahalli Chennabasamma and others (1981 (2) Kar. Law Journal, 261) in support of the proposition canvassed that the substantial relief sought for was not a declaration of the right of the plaintiff, but to prevent the Electricity Board from collecting the amount billed. Undoubtedly, that decision was directly on Sec. 38 (1) of the Act. Sec. 38 (1) of the Act reads as follows : 38. Suits for cancellation of decree, etc (1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other properiy having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was execuied; if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property. (2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less. Explanation 1. A suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section. EXPLANATION 2. In a suit for cancellation of a decree and possession of any property, the fee shall be computed as in a suit for possession of such property. "

( 4 ) THERE is no difficulty in understanding the import of the section in so far as it relates

Click Here to Read the rest of this document