Balaji Distilleries Private Limited vs Swagat Film Distributors

Thanikkachalam, J.—The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. This revision is directed against the order passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City

Civil Court at Madras in I.A. No. 13499 of 1988 in O.S. No. 7871 of 1988, on 29.9.1988 I.A. No. 13499 of 1988 was filed for temporary

injunction restraining the respondent, his servants, agents, representatives from in any manner distributing, exhibiting screening or exploiting the

Kannada picture ''New Delhi'' by using the prints and publicities in his hands. The suit O.S. No.7871 of 1988 was filed for a declaration that the

defendant is not entitled to the rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Kannada picture ''New Delhi'' in any place whatsoever by

using the prints and publicities of the said picture in his hands and also for a permanent injunction. The plaintiff valued the reliefs claimed in the plaint

for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction at a sum of Rs. 900 and has paid a total court-fee of Rs. 68 thereon in the following manner:

The trial court was of the view that the court-fee paid for the relief of permanent injunction is insufficient. According to the trial court, u/s 25(c) of

the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''), the court-fee ought to have been paid on the value of

the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The lower court granted time for payment of deficit court-fee and accordingly the plaint

and the petition in I.A. No. 13499 of 1988 were returned for proper presentation.

It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, under

Sections 25(c) and 27(c) of the Act, the valuation as shown in the plaint for both the reliefs claimed are in order. According to the learned

Counsel, the court-fee need not be paid on Rs. 4,00,000. The plaintiff did not claim any relief for the return of Rs. 4 lakhs from the defendant.

Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the relief of declaration was valued at Rs. 500 and for the relief of permanent injunction the suit

was valued at Rs. 400 and court-fees paid under Sections 25(c) and 27(c) of the Act are correct.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records carefully.

A similar issue has came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ramu Udayar v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 1990 T.L.N.J.

107, wherein it was held that the relief of declaration prayed for, if granted, would have the effect of nullifying the demand made in the order and

when the relief of declaration has been properly valued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, it would be

unnecessary for the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount mentioned in the order, in respect of which declaratory relief is sought for.

Similarly this question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. S.B. Hussain and Anr. v. The Assistant Accounts Officer,

Revenue Unit T.N.E.B., Vaniambadi, Tirupattur and Ors. (1993) 2 M.L.J. 143, wherein it was held that in a case, where declaration sought for is

with regard to aright which is an intangible one, the court-fee is u/s 25(d) of the Act. Even in a case where the relief of declaration prayed for, if

granted, would have the effect of nullifying the demand made under the impugned proceedings, it would be unnecessary for the plaintiff to pay ad

valorem court-fee on the amount mentioned in the impugned order or proceedings, in respect of which declaratory relief is sought for.

In view of the abovesaid decisions cited, the court-fee payable for declaration in the present case is u/s 25(c) and for the relief of permanent

injunction, the court-fee payable is u/s 27(c) of the Act. For both the reliefs, the suit was valued at Rs. 500 and Rs. 400 respectively. Simply

because in the plaint, it is mentioned that the cheque issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the plaintiff was bounced, the suit need not

be valued at Rs. 4 lakhs, since the plaintiff did not ask for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs from the defendant. Under these circumstances, the

court-fee paid by the plaintiff under Sections 25(c) and 27(c) of the Act are in order. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below in rejecting

the plaint and the interlocutory application are set aside. The revision petitioner/plaintiff is directed to represent the plaint and the interlocutory

applications in the same court. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. No costs.