UDAY PRAKASH DWIVEDI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 3-5-97 passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Chapra in Title Suit No. 21 of 1997 asking him to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the plaint.

(2.) The petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 21 of 1997 seeking declaration that there was no outstanding dues of the defendant- Punjab National Bank against him and Certificate Case No. 10 of 1993-94 was fit to be cancelled, and for further declaration that the order dated 7/10-9-96 passed by defendant No. 3 District Certificate Officer, Chapra was illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. The petitioner was paid Court-fee of Rs. 250/- on the plaint. The Saristedar submitted report to the effect that he should pay ad valorem Court-fee. The petitioner objected to the report stating that the suit has been filed under Section 43 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter called, 'the PDR Act') and in terms of Art. 17 (i) of Schedule-II of the Court-fees Act, 1870 corresponding to Art. 13 (i) of Schedule-II of the Court-fees (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called, 'the Court- Fees Act'), he is liable to pay fixed Court-fee of Rs. 250/-. The Court below rejected his contention. It has observed that the petitioner has not only sought declaration but has also prayed for consequential relief. Therefore, he is liable to pay ad valorem Court-fee under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act.

(3.) It is true that the relief has been claimed in the manner as if it was a declaratory suit. But while considering the question of Court-fee, the substance of the case is to be seen and not the form in which relief is claimed. Upon reading of the plaint there does not appear to be any doubt that the suit, in substance, is one for cancellation of the certificate which has been issued against the petitioner under the provision of PDR Act and comes within the ambit of Section 43 of that Act.