LAWS(DLH)-2004-3-84

SARJIWAN SINGH Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

Decided On March 16, 2004
SARJIWAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of fact and law which arises in these Petitions is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to file a Plaint in which only an Injunction simplicitor has been prayed for in the wake of receiving electricity bills for sundry amounts. In Suit No. 791/1997 the learned Civil Judge has held, after considering a catena of precedents, that it was essential for the Plaintiff to pray for the passing of a declaration holding the electricity bill to be invalid before it could be entitled to pray for the consequential relief of an injunction against the Defendant from taking any steps for the recovery of the amounts claimed in the impugned Bill. On the same conspectus of facts, and appreciation of the law, several References had also been made which will be answered by this judgment.

(2.) The provisions of law which are attracted are found in Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. So far as the Suit Valuation Act is concerned, what is basically enunciated therein is that the relief for the purposes of the valuation of the Suit must also correspond to the valuation for the purposes of the jurisdiction. So far as Section 7 of the Court Fees Act is concerned, if it is necessary to seek a declaration before being entitled to consequential reliefs, (in the present case that of an injunction), the valuation would be different to those cases where an injunction simplicitor is prayed for. It is essential in the latter case that no legal obstacle has to be overcome before the injunction is claimed.

(3.) Various cases have been cited by learned Counsel. Reference need not go beyond the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahant Purushottam Dass and Others v. Har Narain and Others, AIR 1978 Del 114. Echoing the words employed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2384 the Full Bench has opined that the question whether the relief of injunction prayed for by the Plaintiff should be considered as a consequential to the main relief or not has to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayers contained in the plaint. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to impede the Court from looking at the substance of the relief asked for. No purpose will be served in multiplying citations.