In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 08.12.2010 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice K.MOHAN RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)NO.1171 OF 2007 M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited, rep.by its Executive Director Mr.R.Jaishankar ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Tamilnadu Electricity Board rep.by its Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance Ranipet. 2.The Junior Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Operation and Maintenance, SIDCO, Ranipet. 3.The Assistant Accounts Officer Revenue Branch, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Office of the Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Ranipet. ...Respondents PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 29.12.2006 made in OS.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet. For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthusamy O R D E R
The petitioner in the above civil revision petition filed a suit in OS.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet against the respondents herein for a declaration declaring the electricity bill of the plaintiff company dated 25.3.2006 issued by the defendants as illegal, null and void so far as it relates to the arrears of S.C.No.146 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and subordinates from disconnecting the schedule mentioned service connection of the plaintiff pursuant to the above said bill.
2. The case of the petitioner in the plaint is that the plaintiff company is carrying on a chemical industry at their factory. The second defendant issued a notice dated 6.3.2006 to one Mr.A.Murugesan, one of the Directors of the plaintiff company calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.86,020/- towards monthly minimum shortfall amount pertaining to S.C.No.146 owned by M/s.Crescent Paper Industries at No.74, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet within seven days, failing which, the same will be added in S.C.No.146 of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited the plaintiff . The third defendant included the above said amount due from M/s.Crescent Paper Industries in the bill of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited dated 25.3.2006. The said action of the third defendant was challenged on the ground that simply because one of the Directors of the plaintiff company is also one of the partners in M/s.Crescent Paper Industries, the electricity bill payable by M/s.Crescent Paper Industries cannot be fastened on the plaintiff company. Therefore, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.
3. The said suit has been valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act at Rs.1,000/- for declaratory relief and the plaintiff paid a Court fee of Rs.75.50 Ps. As far as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, under Section 27(c) of the said Act, the suit has been valued at Rs.1,000/- and the plaintiff paid a Court fee of Rs.75.50 Ps. However, since the learned District Munsif was of the view that the object of filing of the suit is to avoid payment of the electricity charges in a sum of Rs.1,00,896/- due under the bill dated 25.3.2006, a direction was given to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on Rs.1,00,896/-. For arriving at the said conclusion, the learned District Munsif placed reliance on the decision in the case of Solaiammal Vs. Rajarathinam (reported in 2003 (3) MLJ 632). Being aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed.
4. Heard both.
5. Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (cited supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case. Placing reliance on the following decisions :
“i. Messers Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem by its Partner R.S.Gunasekaran (reported in 1987 (I) MLJ 32); and
ii. Smt.S.B.Hussain, M/s.Bilal Hussain & Co. Vs. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Unit, TNEB, Vaniambadi, Tirupattur and Others (1993 (2) MLJ 142),”
learned counsel submitted that the ad valorem Court fee need not be paid and the court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the said Act is correct.
6. Countering the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the suit is capable of valuation, the ad valorem court fee on the amount covered by the bill, namely Rs.1,00,896/- should be paid. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (supra).
7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. A reading of the plaint averments shows that what is challenged is the action of the defendants in raising the demand pertaining to S.C.No.146 in respect of the firm by name M/s.Crescent Paper Industries, failing which, the bill amount will be added in S.C.No.16 of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited the plaintiff company. The quantum of electricity charges is not in dispute. But, the very action of the respondents in claiming the amount itself is challenged.
9. In the decision rendered in 1993 (2) MLJ 142 (cited supra), a similar issue came up for consideration before the learned Judge wherein relying on the decision rendered in the case of Ramu Udayar Vs. Tamilnadu Electricity Board (1990 TLNJ 107), 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 said 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. In the decision rendered in the case of Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem Vs. Tamilnadu Electricity Board (reported in 99 LW 740), a similar view has been taken. The said decision squarely applies to the facts of this case.
10. In the decision rendered in 1987 (I) MLJ 32 (cited supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows :
“Only the mode of classification of the plaintiff’s service for purposes of levying current consumption charges is sought to be declared as ultra vires. The relief claimed in this case clearly falls within the ambit of Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act, which clearly lays down that in cases falling under this provision, it is open to the plaintiff to give any notional valuation subject to minimum of Rs.400 prescribed therein. When the Act itself permits adoption of a notional value, irrespective of the fact whether the relief is capable of valuation or not, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has camouflaged the real relief and has paid lesser court fee.”
This decision also squarely applies to the facts of this case.
11. In the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (cited supra), a learned Judge of this Court has laid down as follows :
“Thus while verifying/considering the question of court fee, the Court shall not be carried by the form in which the plaint is drafted. The Court has the onerous duty of going into the substance to ascertain the base for the reliefs claimed and the reliefs that are really emerging from the averments and the relief asked for in the plaint. The cardinal principle that should be borne in mind while disposing a question relating to court fee or verifying the plaint is that the Court should not be carried away by the form in which the plaint is
K.MOHAN RAM,J
RS
drafted; but the Court should keep in mind the substance to ascertain the actual relief asked for.”
But, the facts of that case are totally different and therefore, the decision reported in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (cited supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. The reliance placed by the learned District Munsif on the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (cited supra) is not correct. In the light of the law laid down in the two decisions viz (i) 1987 (I) MLJ 32 (cited supra) and (ii) 1993 (2) MLJ 142 (cited supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the civil revision petition has to be allowed.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition stands allowed. No costs.
To
The District Munsif Court,
Ranipet
RS