( 1 ) EVEN if one Covers a marble stone with beautiful linen cloth or with flowers the marble Stone does not change its real character and worth Similarly by throwing the veil of suitable phraseology on the relief clause in the plaint the subject-matter of the suit Cannot be changed. In the back-drop of the facts that follow these observations are called for.

( 2 ) IT was the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that it is a registered partnership firm doing the business of purchase and sale of cotton seeds and cotton; that it had entered into two separate contracts with the defendant Cotton Corporation of India for purchase of Manavadar Cotton Seeds. As per the contract dated 28/11/1986 the defendant was required to deliver 4500 quintals of cotton seeds at the rate of Rs. 61. 25 ps. per 20 kgs. As per the contract dated 8/12/1986 the defendant was required to deliver 450 quintals of cotton seeds at the rate of Rs. 64. 50 ps. per 20 kg. The defendant had supplied 1260 quintals of cotton seeds in respect of first contract. Thereafter the defendant had failed to give delivery of the balance quantity of the cotton seeds. Therefore the plaintiff prayed for a declaration and injunction to the effect that the defendant had no right to give delivery of cotton seeds to other dealers unless the balance quantity of cotton seeds was delivered to the plaintiff and accordingly prayed for permanent injunction. The plaintiff valued the relief deemed in the suit at Rs. 300 and paid court-fees of Rs. 30 only. The Inspecting Officer (Court-fees) on examination of the plaint came to the conclusion that the relief prayed for was capable of being valued in terms of money. The reliefs were in respect of two different contracts. According to the relevant provisions of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 the plaintiff was liable to pay an amount of Rs 18 800 as court-fees. Hence the Inspecting Officer (Court fees) made reference to Court Detailed calculation has been given by the Inspecting Officer (Court-fees) as under:

( 3 ) THE aforesaid reference was made by the Inspecting Officer (court-fees) on 24/03/1987 The learned IInd Joint Civil Judge (J D) Rajkot after hearing the parties passed an order on October 15 1987 accepting the reference By this order he directed that the suit was required to be valued as per the provisions of Sec. 6 (xi) (a) of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 and accordingly an amount of Rs. 18 800 was required to be paid for the amount involved in the suit was Rs. 15 23 250 The plaintiff had already paid Rs. 30. 00 as court-fees. Therefore the plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit court-fees of Rs. 15 770 within thirty days from the date of the order. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has prayed for declaration and injunction simpliciter and therefore the petitioner is not liable to pay court-fees as directed by the trial Court. In his submission the provisions of Sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act would apply. The submission cannot be accepted. The relevant part of the provisions of Sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Act read as follows:"6 The amount of fees payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: (II ). . . . . . . . . (III ). . . . . . . . . (IV) (a) to (i ). . (J) In suits where declaration is sought with or without injunction or other consequential relief and the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and which are not otherwise provided for by this Act-thirty rupees;"for applicability of the aforesaid provisions over and above other conditions the following two conditions are required to be satisfied namely (1) the subject matter in dispute should not be susceptible of monetary evaluation; and (9) the subject matter in dispute should not have been otherwise provided for in the Act. In the in