The valuation of relief under Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act 1870 must be based on the substantive relief claimed in the plaint, and the concept of real money value forms an integral part of the court's enquiry.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF instituted suit against the defendants seeking relief on restraining them not to disconnect the electricity supply to his workshop 'vinay Agro Industries Khurai (Sagar)' pursuant to additional bills served on the plaintiff by the defendants for an amount of Rs. 2, 14,747. 00. The defendants contested the suit. They preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging that the plaintiff had valued the suit for Rs. 600. 00 and paid Court-fee of Rs. 60. 00 though his prayer was against recovery of Rs. 2,14,747. 00 on which Court-fee had not been paid; therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected for arbitrary valuation. The plaintiff submitted that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction not to disconnect the electricity supply and Court-fee had been paid accordingly. Consequently, the plaint was not defective and the objection was liable to be dismissed.

( 2 ) THE objection advanced by the defendants prevailed with the trial Court which held that the plaintiff was liable to pay ad- valorem Court-fee. This view the trial Court took on the basis of this Court's judgment in Mangilal Jain v. MPEB, Jabalpur (1977) 2 Weekly Notes, 480. Plaintiff challenged this order through revision petition which appeared before one of us (Brother Dipak Misra, J. ). By order dated May 8, 2000, the case has been referred to larger Bench. After dealing with certain judgments on the question, learned Judge said -"9. It is to be noted that in Mangilal Jain (supra) reliance was placed on the case of Badri Lal (supra) where Sathappa Chettiar (supra) was referred. Thus I find that there is apparent conflict between Mangilal and Jagdish Prasad. It is also noticed the Courts below are following Mangilal at times and Jagdish Prasad on certain occasions. In view of this I am of the considered opinion an authoritative pronouncement is called for on this point for better future guidance. As the matter relates to payment of Court-fees and the whole case relates that I am inclined to recommend the whole case for reference to the larger bench under 9 (1) of the M. P. High Court Rules. The question that requires to be answered is whether Mangilal Jain (supra) lays down the correct law or Jagdish Prasad (supra ). "this is how the matter comes before the Full Bench.

( 3 ) HEARD Shri R. K. Samaiya, Advocate for the plaintiff, Shri M. L. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate for the defendants and Shri Ravish Agarwal, Senior Advocate on Court request. Shri Samaiya, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court-fees Act 1870 (for short the Act of 1870), the plaintiff is free to value the relief of injunction claimed in the suit. He could not be compelled to value the relief for perpetual injunction at Rs. 2,14,747. 00 but fixed Court-fee is required to be paid for relief of injunction valued at Rs. 600. 00. Learned counsel places reliance on averments contained in the plaint and single Bench decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad v. MPEB, 1987 MPLJ 452. This submission is opposed by learned Senior Counsel appearing against the plaintiff. Certain decisions have been cited in support of the submission.

( 4 ) IN Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 the Apex Court in paragraph 13 said that the question of Court-fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written-statement or by the final decision of the suit on the merits. Later decision of Supreme Court reported in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 SC 2384 holds in paragraph 4 of the judgment that :"4. As regards the main question that arises for decision, it appears to us that while the Court-fee payable on a plaint is certainly to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint and the question whether the plaintiff's suit will have to fail for f