The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of relief sought in a suit determines the applicable court fee, and the relief of permanent injunction may not have the same money value as the subject matter of the suit, warranting a different valuation for court fee purposes.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this civil revision challenge is to the order dated 28-9-1999 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in C.S. No. 5-A/95.

2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is setforth in the plaint that in the year 1991 the plaintiffs had purchased certain land described in Schedule A from the defendant No. 1. Various sale-deeds were executed by the defendant No. 1. After purchase of the suit land the plaintiffs are in possession and in peaceful enjoyment of the same. It is averred that after sale of the said property to the plaintiffs the defendant No. 1 again sold the said property to other defendants. The plaintiffs have further pleaded as the defendant No. 1 had sold the some of the properties to the other defendants in a malafide manner a cloud has been cast in respect of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. With the aforesaid base the plaintiffs prayed for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 60,000/- for declaration and paid a fixed Court Fee of Rs. 30/-. The reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are that they are the title-holders in respect of the suit property; that sale-deeds executed the defendant No. 1 in favour of the other defendants are null and void; and further the defendants be permanently injuncted to act in a manner which would go against the interest of the plaintiffs.

3. After some of the defendants entered appearance the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') for rejection of the plaint on the ground that proper Court Fee has not been paid on the plaint. It was putforth by the defendants as the suit was valued at Rs. 60,000/- the plaint was returned by the Court below and, therefore, the plaintiffs should pay the Court Fee on the valuation at which the suit has been valued. At this juncture, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code to pay the Court Fee of Rs. 300/- on the valuation of Rs. 60,000/- and to value permanent injunction at Rs. 300/- and to pay Court Fee of Rs. 60/-. The Court below came to hold that he had already opined that the plaintiff was liable to pay the Court Fee on Rs. 60,000/- and accordingly so directed.

4. I have heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (i) and Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

5. Assailing the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Tripathi that the plaintiffs are not parties to the saledeed and they have only sought declaration of their right, title and interest and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the ad valorem Court Fee. It is further submitted by him that when the plaintiffs have valued the relief of injunction at Rs. 300/-, fixed Court Fee of Rs. 60/- should have been allowed to be paid. The learned counsel in support of his submission has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Nainsukh Kishandas and Ors. v. Smt. Manish Choudhary and Ors., 1998 (2) MPLJ 79.

Resisting the aforesaid submission, it is contended by Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for some of the non-applicants that the plaintiffs in the relief clause have prayed for declaration of the subsequent sale deeds as null and void and hence, they are required to pay the ad valorem Court Fee. It is his submission that though the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale-deeds but as they are claiming their right on the basis of sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 they are liable to pay the ad valorem Court Fee. It is his further submission that the plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 60,000/- and, therefore, they are also liable to pay ad valorem Court Fee. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Kapoori Bai v. Bhagwan Singh