( 1. ) FIVE eminent judges of the highest Court of land rendered the decision in the case of Sathappa Chettiar (AIR 1958 S. C. 245) long time ago winch should have set at rest controversy on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Suits; Valuation Act (for short the S. V. Act) but legal ingenuity of counsel is proverbially endless.

( 2. ) NON-PETITIONERs counsel, Shri K. N. Gupta, is vocal in supporting the impugned order relying mainly on Section 8 aforesaid, which I feel tempted to extract in extenso:-

"8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain suits :-Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs v, vi, and ix, and paragraph x, clause (d) court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. "

The contention of the learned counsel is that the trial Court acted rightly within its jurisdiction" in deciding against the plaintiff-petitioner the question of court-fees on the basis of the aforesaid provision holding him liable to pay ad valoram Court-fees on the sum of Rs. 22,734. 30, taking that to be the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction.

( 3. ) THE admitted facts pertaining to the controversy are short and few. The plaintiff-petitioner has challenged as illegal the demand raised in the bill served on him by the defendant-non-petitioner (M. P. Electricity Board) claiming from him a sum of rs. 22,734. 30 and he has challenged further the right of the said defendants to execute the threat held out against him of disconnecting his electric connection. What is also not disputed is that the plaintiff has sought a declaratory relief and has paid fixed court-fees in respect thereto as contemplated under the law. Additionally, he has paid ad valoram court-fees on Rs. 200/- for the relief of perpetual injunction at which he valued the said relief for protecting himself against the threat held out by the defendant to disconnect his electric connection. The trial Court held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to value the suit separately for the relief of declaration and injunction and that the suit ought not to have been valued separately for relief of declaration inasmuch as it was a suit for perpetual injunction and the plaintiff should have valued the suit for perpetual injunction and that too at Rs. 22,734. 30; and not at Rs. 200/ -.

( 4. ) IN assailing the holdings of the trial Court petitioners counsel, Shri N. K. Jain, has submitted that the Court below acted illegally in ignoring the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (d) for taking the view that the valuation of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff was not tenable in law. Counsel has contended that the plaintiff is entitled in law to pay court-fees for the relief of declaration (that the demand notice of the defendant raised an illegal demand which was not enforceable in law) in accordance with Article 17 (iii) Of schedule II of the Court-Fees Act (for short die (C. F. Act) and that he was also entitled in law to value the relief of permanent injunction and to pay ad valorem court-fees thereon inasmuch as Clause (iv) of Section 7 itself contemplated that plaintiff could state the amount at which he valued the relief sought

( 5. ) THE contention advanced by Shri Gupta in substance is that even for the purpose of valuation of a suit for payment of court-fees recourse must be had to section 8 of the S. V. Act and accordingly valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction should be valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fees. When the subject matter of the suit could be valued at Rs. 22,734. 30, in accordance with the provisions of section 8 the plaintiff was liable thereunder to pay ad valorem court-fees on the said amount. To this contention, as I have indicated at the outset, the short and simple answer is given unequivocally and una