JUDGMENT
M.B. Shah, J.
1. These petitions are filed by the State of Gujarat through the Inspecting Officer, Court-Fees, Bhavnagar, against the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1990 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Savarkundla in Court-Fee Reference No. 1 of 1989 & others. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the suits filed against the Gujarat Electricity Board and its officers by various plaintiffs (opponent No. 1 in each of these revision applications) they have not paid proper Court-fees. It was pointed out that the suits were filed by affixing fixed Court-fee stamp of Rs. 30/- as provided under Section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 and not on ad valorem basis. Those Court-fee References were rejected by the learned Judge after appreciating the contents of the plaint. He arrived at the conclusion that at no point of time the plaintiffs expressly or impliedly have prayed that the defendants were not entitled to disconnect the electric connection on the ground that they have failed to pay the electricity bills issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board.
2. At the time of hearing of these petitions, it was contended by the petitioner that the learned Judge ought to have considered the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs as it clearly indicated that the plaintiffs were required to pay electricity bills and that bills were for specified amounts and, therefore, the relief sought for in the plaints was required to be considered for the purpose of affixing proper Court-fees.
3. As against this, Mr. Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opponent (original plaintiff) vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge is just and legal and after appreciating the contents of the plaint.
4. For appreciating the aforesaid contention, it would be necessary first to refer to the averments in the plaint filed by the plaintiff. In the plaint it is prayed that it be declared that disconnection of electricity connection was illegal and that it was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from disconnecting the electricity and be directed to restore it immediately. For this relief, it was contended that the cause of action arose on 10th March, 1987 because of the arbitrary action by the employees of the Gujarat Electricity Board. It was stated that before two months of filing of the suit, two employees of the Gujarat Electricity Board misbehaved with one girl of the village and made an indecent demand. Because of this, village people were excited and the two employees were permitted to go after they apologised for it. To take vengeance for the said incident the employees of the Board stated something false to the superior officers and, therefore, the superior officers such as Engineers came at the village with the police on 10th March, 1987. When the officers were checking, two persons were found committing electric theft. Except the aforesaid two persons, no other person was indulging in any such activity. At that time village people gathered there. Therefore, the checking officers called for the police party and the village people including young girls as well as women were beaten severely. Because of the said incident, even though the plaintiff and other 35 persons have not committed electricity theft, their electricity connections were disconnected arbitrarily by the officers of the Board. Because of the said disconnection it was submitted that the plaintiffs were suffering irreparable loss. It was also pointed out that no offence for committing theft was registered against the plaintiffs nor Electricity Board was entitled to recover any amount from them. It was also stated that the plaintiffs have paid all the amounts as per the bills submitted by the Board.
5. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) who decided the suits arrived at the conclusion that the action of the officers of the Board in disconnecting electric connection was arbitrary and it was established that without any reason the power was disconnected illegally by the officers. While deciding the suits, the learned Judge has appreciated the evidence of the officer of the Board who had gone to the village on 10th March, 1987. It is an admitted fact that against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the Gujarat Electricity Board has not preferred any appeal.
6. Considering the averments made in the plaint and the finding given by the learned Judge, it is apparent that in all the suits filed by the plaintiffs it is nowhere stated that electric power was disconnected by the respondent because of non-payment of electricity bills. It was their contention (which is accepted by the learned Judge after trial) that arbitrarily and illegally electric power was disconnected by the officers of the Board for an ulterior motive because of the incident which had happened before two months when two employees of the Electricity Board made indecent demand from a village girl. Hence the basis and foundation of the suit is illegal and arbitrary action of the officers of the Board and the prayer in the plaint is also on the same lines. Further, the substance of the suit in any case is only for a declaration that the action of the officers of the Board was illegal and mala fide and not for adjudicating the validity of electricity bill. The main prayer in the suit was for a declaration that action of the Board was arbitrary and illegal and for consequential relief. Hence this case would be covered by the provisions of Section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act.
7. It is also established that valuation of suit is required to be based on the averments and allegations made in the plaint and not on the basis of the contentions raised in the written statement.
8. In the case of Ram Narain Prasad v. Atul Chander Mitra , the Supreme Court has observed as under:
In Sethappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar , this Court noted that the question of Court-fees had to be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision could not be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on the merits. Though this was stated upon a concession, we have no doubt that the statement lays down the law correctly. For the purposes of valuation of the suit for determination of the Court-fees payable thereon, what is relevant is the plaint. The averments made and relief sought in the plaint determines the character of the suit for the purposes of the Court-fees payable thereon. What is stated in the written statement is not material in this regard. This view has also been taken by many High Courts.
In this view of the matter, the valuation of the suit and payment of Court-fees under Section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act was proper. Hence there is no substance in these revision applications.
9. In the result, these revision applications are rejected. Rule discharged in each matter with no order as to costs.