JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an application by the plaintiff to revise the order dated 16-2-52 passed by the Civil Judge, First Class Gwalior in Civil Suit No.28 of 1951. 2. The question involved in this petition is one of Court-fees. The plaintiff has filed a suit for a declaration that a certain receipt ackowledging the receipt of Rs.6000/- and purported to have been signed by him and which is now in the possession of the defendant, is a forgery and that he never received from the defendants Rs.6000/-. The plaintiff filed the suit on a Court-fee stamp of Rs.15/-. One of the issues framed by the Court was whether the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was proper. On this issue, the lower Court found that ad valorem Court-fee was payable on Rs.6000/-. The applicant challenges the correctness of this finding. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the non-applicant took the preliminary objection that this revision petition was not competent under S.115, C.P.C. He relied on - 'Hajrabi v. Md. Ibrahim', AIR 1948 Nag 219. I do not see how this decision helps the applicant. In that case it has been distinctly held that where the question of Court-fee is mixed up with that of jurisdiction, a revision petition lies against the decision of the lower Court on the question of Court-fees. I would only refer to two other decisions of the Nagpur High Court reported in - 'Pandurang Mangal v. Bhojalu Usanna', AIR 1949 Nag 37 and - 'Paikansing Sheoram-sing v. Maniksing Mohtabsing', AIR 1949 Nag 97; where it has been held that an order requiring payment of additional Court-fees is revisable. The objection of the applicant must, therefore, be overruled. 4. In support of this petition, Mr. Moti Lal Gupta relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in - 'Nagabhushanam v. Venkatappayya', AIR 1935 Mad 203 , argued that inasmuch as the plaintiff was impeaching the receipt as having been forged, he could not be regarded as being a party to it and that, therefore, it was not incumbent on him to have it cancelled or set aside and that he could sue for a mere declaration that the document was a forged one and pay court-fees in the suit accordingly. The Madras decision is, no doubt, an authority for the proposition that when a person impeaches a deed as having been forged, to refer to him as being a party to it, is an obvious misuse of words and where a forged instrument has been brought into existence as if he were a party to it, it is not incumbent on him to have it cancelled or set aside by a suit and that he can file a suit for a mere declaration that a document is a forged one and such a suit is governed by Art.17-A(1), Court-fees Act. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant does not question the correctness of this decision. But he argues that in the present case the plaintiff is seeking not merely the relief of a declaration that the receipt is a forged one, but also the relief that it is held to be a genuine one, the amount of Rs.6000/- evidenced by the receipt was not in fact received by the plaintiff. This contention of the non-applicant must, in my opinion, be accepted in para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the receipt in question is a forgery and at no time did he receive from Shambhu Dayal Rs.6000/- and further that at no time he gave any receipt to Shambhu Dayal. In the next para, the plaintiff says that it is possible that the receipt has been forged by using some paper on which the plaintiff's signature appeared. Again, in the last para the plaintiff claimed the relief of a declaration that the receipt was a forgery and that by that receipt he never received Rs.6000/- from the defendant. It is clear from these allegations in the plaint that the plaintiff does not stop by asking merely the relief of the declaration that the receipt is a forgery. He goes further and prays that it be further declared that he never received Rs.6000/- from the defendant. I do not think it requires discussion to show that if the receipt is held, to be a genuine receipt, the plaintiff's claim that the receipt was not given for any consideration, would still remain for investigation. The relief that Rs.6000/- were never paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff is claiming is clearly an additional relief. I do not think it requires discussion to show that if the receipt is held, to be a genuine receipt, the plaintiff's claim that the receipt was not given for any consideration, would still remain for investigation. The relief that Rs.6000/- were never paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff is claiming is clearly an additional relief. If the plaintiff desires that his claim about the passing of the consideration of Rs.6000/- should be considered by the lower Court, he must pay ad valorem fee on Rs.6000/-. It is of course open to amend the plaint and say distinctly that in the event of the receipt being held to be a genuine one, he does not propose to contest the fact of the receipt by him of Rs.6000/-. But he must make his election at an early date and within the time fixed by the lower Court. I need not add that if the plaintiff fails to pay ad valorem Court-fees on Rs.6000/- no issue as regards the question whether if the receipt is genuine the plaintiff received Rs.6000/- from the defendant shall be framed and investigated. 5. With these observations, I reject this petition. Costs of this petition will follow the result of the suit in the lower Court.