( 1 ) ). The petitioners are the original defendants, against whom the respondent herein has filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 1993, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Himatnagar. The said suit is for a declaration and injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that even though he is not a consumer of the defendant No. 1-Gujarat Electricity Board, still, he has been subjected to bills, that the defendants had no authority to issue such bills to the plaintiff, and that therefore, the bill, which was dated 7thjanuary, 1993 is without authority. It was, therefore, prayed in the suit that it may be declared that the defendants have no right to issue any bill to the plaintiff and that a permanent injunction be given restraining the defendants from taking any action for the purpose of recovery of any amount on the basis of such bills.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the defendants, the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 41,836/-, for which he was served with the bill and since he has consumed theelectricity unauthorisedly, under Condition Nos. 33 and 34 of Miscellaneous Conditions and Charges Act, he was required to pay the said amount. In the aforesaid proceedings, the Inspecting Officer, Court Fees, Mehsana submitted his report under Sec. 12 (3) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. In his report, he has stated that the defendants have issued an average bill for an amount of Rs. 41,836/- and since the suit is for challenging the bill in question, proper court fee was required to be paid as the suit is filed only on the Court fees of Rs. 30/ -. As per the report of the Court Fee Inspector, the valuation put by the,plaintiff is not properand that the subject-matter is susceptible of monetary evaluation and would fall under Art. 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959. Calculating the Court fee on the basis of the claim of Rs. 41,8367-, the Court Fee Inspector found that Court fee of Rs. 2,230/- was required to be paid by the plaintiff. The aforesaid provisional finding was submitted to the Court. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), hirnatnagar, after hearing all concerned parties, passed an order below Exh. 1 in the said suit. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge passed an order below exh. 19 and ultimately, after hearing both the sides, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit would fall under Sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 and Court Fee Reference No. 1 of 1996 made by the Court fee Inspector was accordingly rejected. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners-original defendants in this Revision Application.

( 3 ) THIS Court, at the time of admitting this Revision Application, also stayed the order of the learned Civil Judge.

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing of this Revision Application, Mr. H. S. Mulia, who is appearing for Mr. R. C. Jani, has argued that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is adequate and that it is also an error on the part of the learned Judge in coming to the conclusion that the case in question will fall under Sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Court Fees Act.

( 5 ) MR. Japee, on the other hand, has supported the reasoning of the trial court.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing both the sides, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the trial Court is not at all sustainable. It is the duty of the Court to find out whether appropriate Court fee is paid by the plaintiff or not. In order to find out whether required Court fees is paid or not, the basic document which is required to be considered is the plaint. From the reading of the plaint, ultimately, it is required to be found out as to what relief the plaintiff is seeking from the Court. If the subject-matter in question is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and not otherwise provided for by the Act, such suit can lie on Court fees of Rs. 30/ -. Section 6 (iv) (j) provides as unde