The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'consequential relief' under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and the limited scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1. The present petition is being filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.12.2020, whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and the petitioners have directed to pay the ad valorem court fees on the civil suit filed by them.

2. It is pointed out that the civil suit was filed by the petitioners for seeking declaration and injunction with respect to the property in question and also for declaring the Will dated 22.1.2019 as null and void as against the plaintiff/petitioners. The suit was valued for Rs. 1,01,000/- for declaration and injunction and accordingly the fixed court fees was paid. It is pointed out that the valuation of the court fees is required to be done only on the basis of pleadings of the plaint and the nature of reliefs sought. It is argued that the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs in the civil suit:

^^vr,o Jheku th ls ÁkFkZuk gS fd oknhx.k ds fgr esa Áfroknh ds fo#) fuEu vk'k; dk t;i= fMØh Ánku dh tkos&
v- ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd eFkqjks ckbZ ifRu Lo0 Jh uRFkw yky lkgw fuoklh jktik;xk jksM+ u;kcktkj y'dj Xokfy;j }kjk laikfnr olh;rukek rkjh[kh 22&1&2019 ¼ckbZl tuojh nks gtkj mUuhl½ oknhx.k ds eqdkcys 'kwU; vf/kdkj foghu o O;FkZ gksdj oknhx.k ij ca/kudkjh ugha gSA
c- oknh x.k ds fgr esa Áfroknh ds fo#) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd Áfrokn oknxzLr Hkou dks gLrkarj.k u djs u fdlh Ádkj dh rksM+QksM+ dj edkfu;r ds Lo#i dks cnys rFkk oknxzLr d`f”k Hkwfe dks fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls foØ; gLrkarj.k vkfn u djs u djkosA
l- vU; dksbZ lgk;rk U;k;ksfpr gks Ánku dh tkosA
n- Ádj.k O;; oknh dks Áfroknh ls fnyk;k tkosA**

3. It is argued that looking to the nature of the reliefs which has been sought by the petitioners only for declaration and the court fees is required to be paid which has been paid by the petitioners and as far as injunction part is concerned i.e. consequential relief consequent to declaration, therefore, no ad valorem court fees is required to be paid in the suit. The order impugned is bad in law and he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanik Nagar Durga G.N. 5 Samiti Vs. Indore City Improvement Trust, 1983 MPWN 66. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 2384 and has argued that expression "consequential relief" is being considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has held that expression "consequential relief" in Section 7 (iv) (c) of Court Fees Act means some relief which would follow strictly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of declaration as a substantial relief. He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Varud Ahmed Vs. Nihal Ahmed, 1996 (1) MPWN 235. In the case of Ashok Kumar Gehani and another Vs. Ramhet Agrawal and another, 2007 (III) MPWN 86, wherein it was categorically held that the plaintiffs not being party to the sale deed nor claiming through vendor can sue for mere declaration and not liable to pay ad valorem court fees. In such circumstances it is argued that the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has argued that the petitioners has sought declaration of title and also sought a consequential relief of declaring the Will dated 22.1.2019 as null and void and further consequential relief that the defendant not to create any third party interest nor make any damage to the property nor change the physical nature of the property. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the other reliefs are no