The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the prayer in a suit determines the valuation and court fee payable, and a prayer for specific performance of a contract or accounting requires additional court fee.

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mohd. Adil Khan and Shri Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.

2. Through the instant revision petition, the order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri, has been assailed on the ground that issue no.3 which related to valuation of the suit and the court fee has wrongly been decided keeping in view the prayer clause made in the plaint.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for respective parties and perused the record of the court below.

4. A suit before the court below for permanent injunction was filed by the revision applicant (plaintiff) against the opposite party-defendant with the prayer that a decree for permanent injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant to the effect that the defendant will not transfer the Hot Mix Plant mentioned in para 3 of the plaint and the other machinery anywhere till the work of all four projects mentioned in para 1 of the plaint are complete and the accounts of the aforesaid four projects are settled.

5. A written statement was filed by the sole opposite party- defendant denying the plaint allegations. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, issues have been framed including issue no.3, which is as follows:-

^^okn fcUnq la[;k&3 bl izdkj fufeZr fd;k x;k gS fd D;k okn dk ewY;kadu xyr vkSj de fd;k x;k gS] vkSj vnk U;k; 'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\^^

The learned trial court while discussing the case put forth by the opposite party-defendant has stated in the impugned order that in fact the revision-applicant intends to get the specific performance of the terms of the agreement dated 31.03.2009 done and hence, he should have furnished the court fee accordingly. It has also been stated by the learned court below that the opposite party-defendant has also prayed for accounting and hence, according to the provisions of the Court Fees Act, the court fee should be paid whereas the revision-applicant has paid court fee of Rs.500/- only. The learned court below while quoting the prayer clause made in the plaint has recorded a finding that the prayer made by the revision-applicant is not confined to seeking permanent injunction; rather prayer is that the opposite party-defendant be restrained till the revision-applicant is able to complete the work and accounting is also complete. On that basis, an inference has been drawn by the learned court below that in fact, the revision applicant has prayed for specific performance of contract and he has also prayed for a decree for accounting, therefore, in case the prayers made by the plaintiff is granted, then necessary directions will be required to be issued for specific performance of contract and also for accounting.

6. So far as the valuation of the suit is concerned, the opposite party-defendant did not raise any objection and the suit was valued at Rs.1,00,00,000/- ( Rs.One Crore) on which, the payment of court fee of Rs.500/- was made for the reason as alleged by the learned counsel for the revision-applicant, that the prayer in the suit is for permanent injunction only. The prayer clause as extracted from the plaint runs as under:

^^/kkjk 9&;g fd oknh fuEu vuqrks"k dh ;kpuk djrk gS%&

(v) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dh vKkfIr cgd oknh fo:) izfroknh ikfjr dj izfroknh dks funsZf'kr fd, tk, fd og okn i= dh /kkjk 1 esa of.kZr pkjksa izkstsDV dk dk;Z iw.kZ fd, cxSj rFkk bu pkjksa izkstsDV ds dk;Z ds ykHk gkfu dk fglkc&fdrkc dj ,oa leLr ns;nkjh dh vnk,xh djus rd okn i= dh /kkjk 3 esa of.kZr gkVfeDl IykUV ,oa vU; e'khujh dks vU;= LFkkukUrfjr u djsA

(c) okn O;; ,oa vU; og U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk ftls U;k;ky; Jheku th }kjk vko';d le>k tk,] oknh dks izfroknh ls fnykbZ tk,A^^

7. A perusal of the prayer clause as extracted hereinabove, reveals that the suit by the revision applicant does not contain any prayer seeking any accounting or for passing a decree for spec