The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, particularly in relation to the valuation of suits for declaration and the payment of court fees.

The petitioner in the above civil revision petition filed a suit in OS.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet against the respondents herein for a declaration declaring the electricity bill of the plaintiff company dated 25.3.2006 issued by the defendants as illegal, null and void so far as it relates to the arrears of S.C.No.146 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and subordinates from disconnecting the schedule mentioned service connection of the plaintiff pursuant to the above said bill.

2. The case of the petitioner in the plaint is that the plaintiff company is carrying on a chemical industry at their factory. The second defendant issued a notice dated 6.3.2006 to one Mr.A.Murugesan, one of the Directors of the plaintiff company calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.86,020/- towards monthly minimum shortfall amount pertaining to S.C.No.146 owned by M/s.Crescent Paper Industries at No.74, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet within seven days, failing which, the same will be added in S.C.No.146 of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited – the plaintiff . The third defendant included the above said amount due from M/s.Crescent Paper Industries in the bill of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited dated 25.3.2006. The said action of the third defendant was challenged on the ground that simply because one of the Directors of the plaintiff company is also one of the partners in M/s.Crescent Paper Industries, the electricity bill payable by M/s.Crescent Paper Industries cannot be fastened on the plaintiff company. Therefore, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.

3. The said suit has been valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act at Rs.1,000/- for declaratory relief and the plaintiff paid a Court fee of Rs.75.50 Ps. As far as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, under Section 27(c) of the said Act, the suit has been valued at Rs.1,000/- and the plaintiff paid a Court fee of Rs.75.50 Ps. However, since the learned District Munsif was of the view that the object of filing of the suit is to avoid payment of the electricity charges in a sum of Rs.1,00,896/- due under the bill dated 25.3.2006, a direction was given to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on Rs.1,00,896/-. For arriving at the said conclusion, the learned District Munsif placed reliance on the decision in the case of Solaiammal Vs. Rajarathinam (reported in 2003 (3) MLJ 632). Being aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed.

4. Heard both.

5. Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (cited supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case. Placing reliance on the following decisions :

"i. Messers Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem by its Partner R.S.Gunasekaran (reported in 1987 (I) MLJ 32); and

ii. Smt.S.B.Hussain, M/s.Bilal Hussain & Co. Vs. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Unit, TNEB, Vaniambadi, Tirupattur and Others (1993 (2) MLJ 142),"

learned counsel submitted that the ad valorem Court fee need not be paid and the court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the said Act is correct.

6. Countering the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the suit is capable of valuation, the ad valorem court fee on the amount covered by the bill, namely Rs.1,00,896/- should be paid. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (supra).

7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. A reading of the plaint averments shows that what is challenged is the action of the defendants in raising the demand pertaining to S.C.No.146 in respect of the firm by name M/s.Crescent Paper Industries, failing which, the bill amount will be added in S.C.No.16 o