In injunction suits, the relief can be sought without necessitating a declaration in cases where no such claim is made.

1. Being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated March 25, 1969, passed as per check slip No. 185 in the suit O. S. 364 of 1966 on the file of the III Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the plaintiff preferred the above revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The petitioner herein instituted the above suit for perpetual injunction, and the circumstances leading to the institution of the above suit, may now briefly be stated. One by name Dr. Mir Ahmed Ali, an employee of Medical Department in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, was granted a Scholarship in the year 1949 by the then State Scholarship Committee to qualify himself as M. R. C. P. in a period of three years. The plaintiff along with the deceased, Syed Abdul Majed, executed the surety bond. That was unregistered and as such unenforceable in law. The plaintiff further contended in the plaint that the scholar could not qualify himself within the prescribed period of three years, and he applied thereafter for the extension of time without any intimation to the plaintiff. The said scholarship committee without obtaining the plaintiff's consent or that of the other surety, permitted the scholar to prolong his stay in the United Kingdom beyond the stipulated period of three years at his own expense for obtaining the said qualification of M. R. C. P. The plaintiff did not agree to the extension of the period of deputation.
The scholarship committee granted the extension of time to the deputationist in contravention of the scholarship Rules. The scholarship committee by arbitrarily extending the deputation of the deputationist, Committed breach of contract and absolved the plaintiff, thus, of his further obligation to stand by the surety bond. The scholar having failed to qualified himself was dismissed from service and the scholar settled in England. The Government did not take any action against the said scholar either by recalling him back to India or to recover the amount spent on him during his stay in the U. K. On account of the negligent conduct of the Government, by granting unauthorised extension to the deputationist, the plaintiff stood discharged from his liability as a surety. The plaintiff was never informed as to how much amount was spent and when the scholar was actually declared as a defaulter holding (sic) the plaintiff learnt that in August, 1961, the defendant, that is the State of Andhra Pradesh has referred the matter to the Collector, Hyderabad District for realisation of the surety amount from the plaintiff and the Collector Hyderabad has directed the Tahsildar Taluq West, to issue a distress warrant for the attachment of the properties of the plaintiff under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The plaintiff filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against the proposed action of the Government, but the Writ was dismissed on the technical ground that the obligation arising out of breach of contract has to be adjudicated upon in a Civil Court, and the Writ Appeal preferred thereupon as against that decision, was also disposed of by dismissal with the same observation.

3. It is under those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the above suit, praying for the issuance of a perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from initiating any proceedings against the plaintiff for recovery of the alleged government dues. He valued the relief of injunction under S.26 (c) of the Andhra Court - Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 , and paid the court - fee of Rs. 500/-

4. The defendant filed a written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiff and also raising the question of court - fee, stating that the