JAGDISHPRASAD SUKHNANDAN Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE eminent judges of the highest Court of land rendered the decision in the case of Sathappa Chettiar (AIR 1958 S. C. 245) long time ago winch should have set at rest controversy on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Suits; Valuation Act (for short the S. V. Act) but legal ingenuity of counsel is proverbially endless.

(2.) NON-PETITIONER's counsel, Shri K. N. Gupta, is vocal in supporting the impugned order relying mainly on Section 8 aforesaid, which I feel tempted to extract in extenso:-

(3.) THE admitted facts pertaining to the controversy are short and few. The plaintiff-petitioner has challenged as illegal the demand raised in the bill served on him by the defendant-non-petitioner (M. P. Electricity Board) claiming from him a sum of rs. 22,734. 30 and he has challenged further the right of the said defendants to execute the threat held out against him of disconnecting his electric connection. What is also not disputed is that the plaintiff has sought a declaratory relief and has paid fixed court-fees in respect thereto as contemplated under the law. Additionally, he has paid ad valoram court-fees on Rs. 200/- for the relief of perpetual injunction at which he valued the said relief for protecting himself against the threat held out by the defendant to disconnect his electric connection. The trial Court held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to value the suit separately for the relief of declaration and injunction and that the suit ought not to have been valued separately for relief of declaration inasmuch as it was a suit for perpetual injunction and the plaintiff should have valued the suit for perpetual injunction and that too at Rs. 22,734. 30; and not at Rs. 200/ -.