(1.) On 9.12.1992, the following issues were framed :
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings. The plaintiff has claimed a decree for declaration that the compensation determined and imposed by defendant No. 2 through his letter dated 3rd Aug., 1992 in respect of agreement No. 14 of 1991-92 is illegal void and without jurisdiction and is of no effect and as such not binding upon him. By way of consequential relief a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has been claimed against the defendants-respondents for not giving effect to the order imposing compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,23,236.00. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that it being a suit for declaration with consequential relief, the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Court fees Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(3.) Necessary averments as regards valuation of suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction have been made in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the plaint. Plaintiff has put two separate valuations for the purposes of jurisdiction. For the relief of declaration it has been fixed at Rs. 3,23,236.00 and for the relief of injunction at Rs. 150.00 For the purposes of Court fee, the suit has been valued for the relief of declaration at Rs. 200.00. It has been erred that no separate Court fee is payable for consequential relief of injunction but, to avoid any objection the relief of injunction for the purposes of Court fee is being valued Rs. 150.00. On the face it, the manner in which the plaintiff has separately valued the suit for the relief of declaration and injunction and valuing differently such reliefs for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction is not in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, as also Sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.