Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem and Another

Singaravelu, J.—The plaintiff '' n the suit is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit against the Electricity Board for a declaration that the

application of Tariff Code mentioned in the plaint is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the dependents Board from

collecting the amount. The plaintiff valued the suit under S. 25(d) of the Court-fees Act, and a Court-fee of Rs. 30 - 50 was paid on each of the

two relief On objection, the lower court took Lip the issue of Court-fee as a preliminary\ issue and held that the plaintiff is hound I,) put the Court-

fees for the amount which lie \A ants it) save by filing the suit, in other words the plaintiff was directed to pay I he Court-fee on the bill amount of

Rs. 5(XX) and odd The plaintiff is aggrieved and he has come forward with this revision.

1 have heard learned counsel for both sides. This suit is for a declaratory relief not covered b~ S. 25 of Act. The consequent relief of injunction

is not with'' reference to immovable property and hence S. 25(b) will not apply. No relief of declaration is sought for in respect of tile to any

immovable property. Only the mode of classification of the plaintiff''s service for purposes of levying current consumption Central Chinmaya

Mission Trust charges is sought to he declared as ultra vires. Thus He relief claimed in this case clearly fail% within the ambit of S. 25(d) of the

Court fees Act. which clearly lays down that in cases failing under this provision it is open to the plaintiff to give any notional valuation subject to a

minimum of Rs. 400 prescribed, I herein. When the Act itself permits adoption of a notional value, irrespective of the fact whether the relief is

capable of valuation or not. it cannot be said that the plaintiff has camouflaged-the real relief and has paid a lesser Court-fee. Hence, the decision

reported in Mahaveerchand v. Town Panchayat Sriperumbudur, rep. by its Executive Officer, (1984) 2 MU 45, and relied on by the lower Court,

will not apply to this case.

The result is the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct and the order of the lower Court with reference to the Court-fee is set aside. This civil

revision petition is allowed. No costs.

Petition allowed.