In the absence of any Rules framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and any amendment made in the Court-fees Act, the plaintiff has an absolute right or option to put any valuation of relief for the purpose of court-fee under Section 7(iv)(c) and the Court has no power to interfere in the valuation of relief put by the plaintiff for the purpose of court-fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.

BAHARUL ISLAM, J. :- This application under S.115 of the Civil P.C. is by the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated 16-8-1976 passed by the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur, directing him to value his suit and pay Court fee at an amount much higher than at what he valued it.

2. The plaintiffs suit was "for declaration that the decree dated 26-2-1973 in O.S. No. 4 of 1973 of the Subordinate Judge (II) is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff," and "for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 (O. P. No. 1 herein) from proceeding with the execution of that decree." The plaintiff-petitioner valued his suit at rupees 4,200/- both for the Courts jurisdiction and the Court-fee under S.7(iv)(c) (wrongly typed as 7(v)(c) in the plaint) of the Court-fee Act and paid ad valorem court-fee on that amount.

3. The brief facts material for the purpose of the disposal of the controversy before us may be stated follows :

Opposite Party No. 1 (State Bank India) brought Original Suit No. 4 of 1973 in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur, against the Opposite Party No. 2, M/s Medico Drug House, Paona Bazar, Imphal, as defendant No. 2 and the present petitioner as defendant No. 1, and got a decree for Rs. 32,065.45 p. with costs. According to the petitioner the decree was obtained by Opposite Party No. 1 by collusion with the petitioners lawyer, Shri K.P. Dey. He brought this suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

4. A plea, inter alia, was taken in his written statement by Opposite Party No. 1 that "the suit is grossly undervalued" and that it ought to have been valued at Rs. 33,670.70 p. both for the purpose of Courts jurisdiction and Court-fee.

5. The Court framed a preliminary issue, Issue No. 2, in the following terms :

"2. Is not the suit correctly valued ? If not, what is its correct value" ?

6. The learned trial Court held,- "Looking into the substance and the nature of the claim it is clear that the claim of the plaintiff is in substance one for setting aside the decree even though he carefully avoided to mention such a word like "setting aside the decree in his reliefs cast in the plaint. Though the plaintiff has fixed the value at Rs. 4,200/- under S.7(iv)(c), he has not disclosed any basis for calculation of that value.

(emphasis added)

According to the learned Judge the suit ought to have been valued at Rs. 29,670.70 both for the purpose of Courts jurisdiction and Court fee. He arrived at the amount of rupees 29,670.70p. thus : the impugned decree was for Rs. 32,069.45p. plus the cost of the suit, Rs. 1,601.25p. minus rupees 4,000/- which the petitioner alleged to have paid. He directed the petitioner by his impugned order to value the suit at Rs. 29,670.70 p. both for jurisdiction and court fee as stated above.

7. The agreed position before us is that the present suit is "to obtain a declaratory decree with consequential relief" and that it has been correctly valued under S.7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter the Act) read with S.8 of the Suits Valuation Act. But the controversy before us is that the amount at which the suit has been valued, namely, Rs. 4,200/-, is grossly inadequate, as held by the learned trial Court.

8. Shri A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit governed by S.7(iv)(c) of the Act, the plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit at any amount.

The relevant portions of S.7 of the Act read :

"S.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 :

(i) For money : In suit for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically) - according to the amount claimed :

(ii) For maintenance and annuities. In suit for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically according to the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed