( 1 ) A short but interesting point arising in the matter is whether the amount of court fees payable in a suit for recovery of money against an international air carrier, falling within the ambit of [the] Carriage by Air Act, (69 of 1972) (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the ACT) is to be computed ad-valorem, on the amount claimed or it can be paid on a tentative value, taking shelter under Rule 22 (5) in the IInd Schedule to the Act on the plea that the plaintiff, who seeks conversion of foreign currency in the Indian Rupee, is not aware of the exact amount likely to be awarded, because it has to be worked out on the exchange rate prevailing on the date of judgment in the suit.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF no. 1 is a proprietory concern of plaintiff no. 2. Defendant no. 1, Air France, is an international airways. Defendant no. 2 is the consignee of goods based in New York. The plaintiff s case is that they consigned fifty packages of garments of the weight of 555 Kilograms from Delhi to New York for defendant no. 2; out of it, 26 packets were lost in transit, making the entire consignment unsaleable, unacceptable and useless; the plaintiff suffered loss of the entire 50 packages (555 Kgs.) for which defendant no. 1 was liable to compensate and bound to make payment of Rs. 7,70,000. 00 in terms of Indian Rupee per calculation on declared value as on 16 September 1994; that after lot of correspondence, defendant no. 1 got plaintiffs consent to its offer of Rs. 2,54,797. 92 equivalent to US $ 8112. 00, paid to the plaintiff in full and final settlement; that plaintiff s consent was given under duress and coercion and as such the plaintiff still was due and claimed the balance amount of Rs. 5,22,202. 00 from defendant no. 2 (para 23 ; that the liability being statutory, the plaintiffs are not aware as to what exact amount is likely to be decreed as the court has to calculate the amount as per rate of Franc prevailing on the date of judgment; the amount calculated by the pliantiff may increase or decrease depending on the rates at the time of judgment and as such the final relief cannot be valued. The reliefs claimed are:-

(I) for money and (ii) declaration. The first chargeable ad-valorem and the second on a fixed court fees. Para 26, relating to valuation for court fees and jurisdiction, framed in unconventional and some what laboured manner, but heavily relied on by the plaintiff, runs thus :- " 26. The Suit has been valued at Rs. 5,00,002. 00 for the purpose of jurisdiction for declaration on which fixed (sic) court fee has been paid. The suit is valued at Rs. 500. 00 for jurisdiction for recovery, on which proper court fee has been paid. . . . . . . . "with the above averment, the plaintiff has affixed a court fees of Rs. 40 on the plaint: Rs. 20 for the relief of recovery of money and Rs. 20 for the second relief of declaration.

( 3 ) ON filing of the plaint, the Registry of the court raised objection that proper court fee had not been paid, as the suit was for recovery of money falling under section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 requiring payment of ad-valorem court fee. On the plaintiff insisting on his stand, on tentative valuation, the Joint Registrar, after hearing, by his order dated 15 July 1996, upheld the Registry s objection and called upon the plaintiffs to remove the objection and pay the requisite court fee.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Rule 4, Chapter II, Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules), 1967.

( 5 ) I have heard Mr. G. N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant at some length.

( 6 ) FOR proper appreciation of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, it would be appropriate at this stage to notice and refer to the provisions of the Act and its Schedules I and II containing certain rules relating to international carriage by air, signed on a convention on 12 October 1929 at Warsaw (Schedule I) and to the amended rules at such convention held on 28 September