Radhakrishnan, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been placed before us on a reference by the learned single judge holding that the points raised are of considerable importance. The issue relates to payment of court fee learned single judge also made reference to a Bench decision of this court in Sreekumaran v. State of Kerala.

2. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 6.6.1997 in O.S.No.182 of 1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thodupuzha. Since proper court fee was not paid, the suit was not proceeded with. Plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint giving proper valuation for the reliefs prayed for and to pay the required court fee within ten days from the date of the order. Court fee was not paid instead this revision petition was preferred and obtained stay of further proceedings in the suit.

3. Plaintiff was the successful bidder in respect of bit No.II of 1976 Wattle plantation at Pazhathottam, in the auction held on 7.11.1990. Auction was confirmed by the Conservator of Forests, High Range Circle, Kottayam as per order dated 10.1.1991. Bid amount was Rs.3,21,000/and the plaintiff had remitted Rs.25,000/- on 7.11.1990 as per the sale condition. Plaintiff instituted the suit on the plea that the confirmation of the auction was illegal and that the auction was null and void and prayed for the following reliefs:

a) Declaring the auction sale conducted by defendants 2 in respect of block No.II of 76 Wattle Plantation at Pazhathottam in Marayoor Range in Munnar Division on 7.11.1990 pursuant to notification No.10945/89 dated 26.9.1990 illegal null and void and allow the plaintiff to recover the sum of Rs.31,725/- with future interest at 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.25,000/- from the defendants.

b) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from conducting re-auction of Block No.II of 1976 Wattle Plantation at Pazhathottam in Marayoor Range in Munnar division covered by the auction notification dated 26.9.1990. No. being M8-10945/89 at the risk and cost of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff has valued relief (a) at Rs.31,725/- under Section 22 of the Court Fees Act. Relief (b) was not valued alleging that it was consequential to relief (a).

4. The court below by order dated 1.11.1996 directed the plaintiff to value the relief for declaration at Rs.31,41,000/- and to amend the plaint. That order was challenge before this court in C.R.P.No.137 of 1997. It was submitted that the sum of Rs.31,41,000/- mentioned in the order of the court below was a mistake and the matter was remanded to the court below to pass appropriate orders regarding court fee payable by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and for the relief of injunction in the light of Section 25 and proviso to Section 25 (c) of the Court Fees Act and in the light of the decision in Sreekumaran's case, supra (1996 (2) KLT 21). The court below then considered the matter and held that declaration sought for by the plaintiff is capable of valuation and consequently relief for declaration was liable to be valued at Rs.3,41,000/- under Section 25 (d) (i) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

5. Plaintiff had alleged that third respondent by letter dated 6.3.1991 threatened re-auction of the block bid by the plaintiff at plaintiff's risk and cost treating the plaintiff as a defaulter. In the written statement defendant had pointed out that State sustained a loss of Rs.2,58,630/-. Relief of injunction was sought for restraining recovery of the said amount. It was held by the court below that since injunction was sought for against recovery of the said amount, the said amount is liable to be valued at Rs.2,58,630/-. Plaintiff had also prayed for a decree for realization of Rs.31,725/- which was liable to be valued at Rs.31,725/- itself under Section 22 of the Court Fees Act.

6. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that since plaintiff has sought for only declaration that the auction conducted on 7.11.1990