( 1 ) ). The petitioner-Municipality is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court regarding payment of Court fees. The petitioner-Municipality had filed a suit for declaration and injunction that the notice dated May 15, 1990 issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board, was illegal and void and so also the letter dated may 30, 1990 demanding dues and threatening disconnection. By these notices marks 4/3 and 4/5, the defendant-Gujarat Electricity Board had demanded the electricity dues amounting to Rs. 6,96,135. 33 on account of street light and Rs. 11,76,461. 90 on account of water supply. This demand was also made in the letter dated May 15, 1990 at mark 4/3.

( 2 ) ). The suit was valued at Rs. 300. 00 for the purpose of declaration and injunction and the fixed Court fee of Rs. 30. 00 was affixed under Sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Bombay court Fees Act.

( 3 ) ). The Court Fee Inspector had made an application to the Court which was registered as Court Fee Reference No. 1 of 1990 contending that the suit cannot be valued under Sec. 6 (iv) (j) and that the suit was capable of monetary evalution because there was specific challenge to a demand of a specified amount exceeding rs. 19 lacs. The demand consisted of two bills. The Court Fee Inspector contended that the two bills were separate bills and separate cause of action and, therefore, they were required to be valued separately and, therefore, the Court fee of rs. 23,400/- was payable being Court fee of Rs. 9,300. 00 on the bill of Rs. 6. 96 lacs and odd and Rs. 14,100. 00 in respect of the bill of Rs. 11. 76 lacs and odd. The trial Court accepted the contention and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees of Rs. 13,370. 00 under Sec. 12 (6) of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

( 4 ) ). Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-Municipality has preferred this revision application. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has urged the following points :- (a) That the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding deficit court fee after the suit was withdrawn. (b) That the trial Court had erred in proceeding ex parte in deciding the Court fee Reference. (c) It is submitted that under the Bombay Court Fees Act as applicable in gujarat, the maximum Court fee is Rs. 15,000. 00 and, therefore, the order for payment of Court fees of Rs. 23,400. 00 is illegal. (d) Lastly, it was contended that in any case, the petitioner is entitled to refund of substantial Court fees because the suit has been withdrawn unconditionally and before the settlement of issues.

( 5 ) ). On the first point, it may be noted that on the withdrawal purshis Ex. 20 itself, the Court had made an endorsement that the Court Fees Inspector had already filed Reference No. 1 of 1990 and, therefore, the withdrawal purshis was kept for orders and ultimately when the withdrawal purshis was granted, the Court had made expressly clear that the effect of the withdrawal of the suit would not defeat the prayer of Court Fee Stamp Inspector and it was kept open for him and the parties to argue the matter regarding Court fees. It is, therefore, clear that the objection as to Court fees was already raised and was to be decided and the plaintiff cannot defeat that objection by withdrawing the suit. Even otherwise also, the question of Court fees may arise even after disposal of the suit and no hard and fast rule can be laid down that once the suit is disposed of, the question of court fees cannot be raised. In the present case, the question of Court fees was already raised before the withdrawal of the suit and that application of the Court fee Inspector was to be decided.

( 6 ) ). Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwin N. Dave v. Krishnachandra Dave, 1978 GLR 892. In that case, a plaint was rejected under O. VII R. 13 for insufficient Court fees and it was held that when the plaint is rejected on such a ground plaintiff cannot be asked to make good the deficit court fee