The court cannot interfere with the plaintiff's valuation of the relief sought in a suit for a declaration and consequential relief unless the valuation is illegal, palpably absurd, manifestly illogical or arithmetically wrong.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of Sabyasa-chi Mukharji, J. dated the 17th March, 1978. By this order the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff in the suit was liable to pay the court-fees for the sum of Rs- 10,000/-within a specified time. In defaut, the suit was to stand dismissed with costs. It appears that Sm. Maitroyi Mishra the defendant No. 7 in the suit had made an application, inter alia, for an order that court-fees payable by the plaintiff be assessed at Rs. 10,000/-and the plaintiff be directed to pay the deficit court-fees of Rs. 9,991-75 within a week and in default, the suit be dismissed with costs. There was also a prayer for taking the plaint off the file. The learned trial Judge had decided the question of court-fees but with regard to the other prayers, he has said that the applicant would be at liberty to urge and take the points involved at the hearing of the suit.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, therefore, we are primarily concerned with court-fees. There is a cross-objection with respect, inter alia to the prayer for taking the plaint off the file but we do not propose to make any order on the cross-objection for reasons to be hereinafter stated.

( 3 ) ON the question of court-fees we have to consider certain provisions of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 which was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to court-fees in the State of West Bengal. Section 7 (iv) (b) of this Act runs thus ;"section 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits: the amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows : (iv) In suits- (b) for declaratory decree and consequential relief-to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal subject to the provisions of Section 11. "

( 4 ) THIS brings us to Section 11 of the Act. It prescribes :"11. Inquiry as to valuation of suits: If the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. "

( 5 ) UNDER the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7 (iv) (b) of the West Bengal Court-tees Act, 1970 was Section 7 (iv) (c) and Section 11 quoted above was Section 8-C.

( 6 ) MR. B. C. Dutt, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged before us the following points: (1) Where a suit is for a declaration and consequential relief, the plaintiff is entitled to state the amount at which he values the relief sought; (2) The plaintiffs valuation of his own suit cannot be disputed in or set aside by Court unless there is a clear objective standard as regards the valuation of the relief claimed in the suit and (3) The valuation of the reliefs is not synonymous with the valuation of the property or the subject-matter of the suit and the determination of the objective standard must relate to the valuation of the reliefs and not the value of the property or the subject-matter of the suit. (4) The Court has power in appropriate eases to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation where the Court is of the view that the valuation of the reliefs sought in the plaint is manifestly absurd, illogical or arithmetically wrong. (5) The reliefs claimed in the present suit are not capable of being valued on the basis of any objective standard in view of the fact that the plaintiff's claim for declaration, in respect of certain shares which is the subject-matter of the suit, cannot be valued on the basis of value of the shares.

( 7 ) MR. B. C. Dutt has relied on several decisions of this Court reported in AIR 1934 Cal 448 (FB), (Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society Ltd. v. Mafizu-ddin Ahmed); (1957) 61 Cal WN 518, (Manindra Mohan Banerjee v. Nirmal Kumar Banerjee); (1966) 70 Cal WN 857 (Amritlal Chatterjee