S. N. Jha, J.

1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 3-5-97 passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Chapra in Title Suit No.21 of 1997 asking him to pay ad valorem court-fee on the plaint.

2. The petitioner has filed Title suit No.21 of 1997 seeking declaration that there was no outstanding dues of the defendant- Punjab National Bank against him and Certificate Case No.10 of 1993-94 was fit to be cancelled, and for further declaration that the order dated 7/10-9-96 passed by defendant No.3 District Certificate Officer, Chapra was illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. The petitioner was paid Court-fee of Rs.250/- on the plaint. The Saristedar submitted report to the effect that he should pay ad valorem Court-fee. The petitioner objected to the report stating that the suit has been filed under Sec.43 of the bihar Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter called, the PDR Act) and in terms of Art.17 (i) of Schedule-II of the Court-fees Act, 1870 corresponding to Art.13 (i) of Schedule-II of the court-fees (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called, the Court-Fees Act), he is liable to pay fixed court-fee of Rs.250/-. The Court below rejected his contention. It has observed that the petitioner has not only sought declaration but has also prayed for consequential relief. Therefore, he is liable to pay ad valorem Court-fee under Sec.7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act.

3. It is true that the relief has been claimed in the manner as if it was a declaratory suit. But while considering the question of Court-fee, the substance of the case is to be seen and not the form in which relief is claimed. Upon reading of the plaint there does not appear to be any doubt that the suit, in substance, is one for cancellation of the certificate which has been issued against the petitioner under the provision of PDR act and comes within the ambit of Sec.43 of that Act.

4. Before noticing the provisions of section 43 of the PDR Act it would be apt to quote Art.17 (i)/13 (i) of schedule II of the Court-Fees Act as hereunder:

"plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits: (i) to alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any of the civil Courts but not established by Letters Patent or of any revenue Court; (ii ). . . . The key words of the Article, it would appear, are "summary decision or order". There cannot be any dispute that the Certificate Officer appointed under the PDR Act is a revenue Court in order to find out the nature of the decision of the Certificate Officer it would be appropriate to notice the scheme of the said Act, so far as relevant. "

5. Section 4 of the PDR Act provides that when the Certificate Officer is satisfied that any public demand payable to the Collector is due, he may sign a certificate in the prescribed form, stating that the demand is due and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Sec.5 contemplates requisition for recovery of any public demand payable to any person other than the collector. Sec.6 provides that on receipt of such requisition the Certificate Officer, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable and the recovery is not barred by law, may sign a certificate stating that the demand is due and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Sec.7 provides for service of notice alongwith copy of the certificate on the certificate-debtor. Section 9 provides that the certificate-debtor may within the prescribed period file a petition denying his liability, in whole or in part. Sec.10 contemplates hearing and determination of such petitions. It lays down that the Certificate officer, if necessary, may take evidence and determine whether the certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed, and may set aside, modify or vary the certificate accordingly. Where he is of the opinion that the petition involves a bona fide claim of right to property