R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

Heard -learned counsel for petitioner and Shri I. S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel. Both the learned counsel have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that auction of shop/accommoda tion, situate in Court compound in town Roorkee, for 1991-92 was held on 16-3-1991. The bid of the petitioner for Rs. 47,200 was found highest and consequently it was accepted. This auction was confirmed by the Collector on 30-3-1991 and petitioner was allowed to work from 1-4-1991. He deposited the first instalment of Rs. 11,800. The remaining amount was payable in three ins talments to be deposited in the months of July and October, 1991 and January, 1992. The petitioner committed default in payment of the amount which is being sought to be recovered from him as land revenue arrears, chal lenging which he filed Original Suit No. 33 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Roorkee. In para 6 of the plaint of this suit, it has been stated that at the time of the auction, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had given an assurance to persons willing to participate in auction that a second canteen will not be opened in the court premises and they may participate in the auction without any fear of the same. It is stated that from 2-4-1991 a second canteen was opened in the building of the Bar Association, Roorkee and that affected his business and he is not liable to pay the amount. It has also been stated that raising this aspect, he made several applications before the authorities but nothing has been done and they want to recover the amount as land revenue arrears, hence this suit for permanent injunction has been filed.

3. A written statement was filed by respondents disputing the claim of petition and challenging the valuation of the suit and the payment of court fee. Issue No. 7 was struck by the trial court which was decided on 14-2-1995. The trial Court found that though the valuation of the suit is correct, the payment of court-fee of Rs. 500 for relief of injunction is not sufficient. The court decided the issue holding the petitioner liable to pay court-fee on full amount of Rs. 33,400 which is being recovered from him. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Roorkee by his order dated 13-11-1995, aggrieved by which this petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that from a perusal of the plaint it is clear that the only relief sought by the petitioner is that of permanent injunction for which the court-fee prescribed under the Court Fee Act is Rs. 500 which has been paid and the view taken by the courts below that the court- fee paid is not sufficient is based on misconception and against the various judgments of this Court and Honble the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance in case of Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P. , reported in AIR 1968 SC 102 ; M/s. Hannuman Oil Industries v. Kanpur Electric Supply Administration reported in 1983 ACJ 648 and Radha Charan Das v. Th. Mohini Behariji Maharajj and others reported in AIR 1975 All 368.

5. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that if the determination of the liability to pay the amount is incidental, then the court fee payable on the relief of injunction could be sufficient but in case for granting the relief of injunction substantial determination is with regard to the liability to pay the amount, then the court-fee. payable shall be ad valorem. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance* in case of M/s. Ratlam Straw Board Mills Private Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1975 Delhi 270.

6. I have seriously considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In this case the plaint has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ says that at the time of the auction, Su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document