V.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) M /s. Hanuman Oil Industries, which is the applicant in this Court In the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Kanpur in which it claimed a relief for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its officers, servants, employees and agents from disconnecting the electric connection of the applicant bearing installation Nos. 8/2787 and 8/2788 in premises No. 81/99 Cooperganj,MANU -UP -0639 -1983.htm Kanpur . The defendant in the suit, which is the opposite party in this Court, is the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration. The question whether the Court -fee paid by the applicant on the relief sought by it was considered by the Court below, which came to the conclusion in its order dated October 17, 1977 that the applicant was liable to pay Court fee on the footing that it was seeking a declaration to the effect that some sum of money claimed by the defendant was not payable by it towards electric charges and as such It was not liable to pay the same nor was its electrical supply liable to be disconnected on that account. The trial Court called upon the applicant to amend the plaint and pay the Court -fee on that basis. The applicant had paid Court -fee on the basis of the market value given by it to the aforesaid installation (Rs. 6000). The amount paid was Rs. 201 -50 P. on 1/5th of the aforesaid value given to the installation by the applicant. It is how the applicant came to this Court in the present revision.
(2.) THE applicant sought the relief of injunction on the allegations, contained in the plaint, that it was regularly paying the amount of the bills sent to it and that in respect of the aforesaid installations all the dues had stood paid. The defendant had erroneously sent bills for a sum of Rs. 27306 -80 p. and was threatening to disconnect the electric supply of the applicant unless the amount was paid. In effect, the case set up in the plaint is that the defendant was threatening to disconnect the electric supply to the applicant's premises illegally even though nothing was due from the applicant. The relief sought by the applicant is purely one of injunction. It is not seeking any declaration about its liability for payment or otherwise of any amount to the defendant opposite party. For the relief to be granted to the applicant, the Court may incidently have to look into the question whether any amount, as claimed by the defendant, was due from the applicant or not. But, on the averments of the fact made by it in the plaint, the sole relief claimed by the applicant is one of injunction.
(3.) THE Court -Fees Act, as applicable in this State, provides for payment of the amount of Court -fee in a suit, where injunction alone is the relief sought, in Section 7 (iv -B)(b). That provision runs thus: In suits: (a) For easement; (b) For an injunction; to obtain an injunction; (c).................. (d).................. (e).................. According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint; (Provided that such amount shall not be less than one -fifth of the market value of the property involved in or effected by the relief sought or Rs. 200/ whichever is greater; Provided further, that in the case of suits falling under Clauses (a) and (b), the amount of Court -fee leviable shall in no case exceed Rs. 500). That this provision would be attracted for calculating the amount of Court -fee payable in a suit like the present is hardly in doubt. In Murli Dhar v. Bansidhar and others : A.I.R. 1963 All. 86, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where one of the reliefs sought was that the defendants may be restrained by a decree for perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever as acting managing partner of the firm constituted by the plaintiff and the defendant and was an occupier and employer of the factory. The Bench observed that the allegations in the plaint revealed that the plaintiff was basically asking for the relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his carrying on the management of the business. The relief was to be valued under Section 7(iv -B)(b) of the Court -Fees Act. Following this decision a learned Single Judge in Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. Allahabad v. N.A. Nazeer and others : A.I.R. 1963 All. 89 held that where a relief for injunction is claimed because of certain illegal act on the part of the defendant, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to claim any declaration about their right as such, but they could seek an injunction in which case the Court -fee payable by them was to be in accordance with Section 7(iv -B)(b) of the Court -fees Act.;