A RAVINDRA Vs. P JANARDHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition presented a plaint on 20-2-1989 before the learned Subordinate Judge at Kovur, showing the respondents herein as defendants, for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Suits for declaration are dealt with by Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. It deals with suits for declaration with or without consequential reliefs not falling under Section 25 of the said Act. We are not concerned with Section 25 because this is not a suit falling under that Section. Clause (a) of Section 24 of the said Act deals with "suits where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates"; Clause (b) deals with "suits where the prayer is for declaration and for a consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property" Clause (c) deals with "suits where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right"; and Clause (d) deals with all other cases "where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or note"; and it provides mat fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. None of the Clauses contemplate payment of separate court-fee for a consequential relief. The present suit falls under Clause (d) of Section 24, and the petitioner has paid the court-fee on the entire amount in respect of which a declaration has been sought.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramachandra Reddy's case (1 supra). The question that came up for consideration in the four revision petitions before the Division Bench was - what was the court-fee payable on the plaint. In one of the Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.No. 68 of 1976), the suit was for declaring that inspection proceedings of the defendant-electricity board and disconnection of power supply was illegal and that the service connection should be restored. In another Civil Revision Petition (CR.P.No. 49 of 1976), the suit was for declaring that notice of disconnection was illegal and for a mandatory injunction directing the restoration of supply to the plaintiff's establishment. The Division Bench held that in each of these cases, even on the allegations in the plaint the relief had to be valued on the basis of entire amount in the case of electricity consumption charges, and half the provisional estimate in the case of pilferage. No separate court-fee was required to be paid on the consequential relief of restoration of supply whether by way of mandatory injunction or otherwise.