JUDGMENT Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The petitioners in the two Civil revision applications have filed two separate suits in the Court below for a declaration that certain certificate issued under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act are entirely void and not binding on them. As the averments made and the reliefs prayed for in the two suits are similar and as similar orders have been passed by the court below, demanding advalorem court-fee from the plaintiffs, these two civil revision applications have been heard together. 2. A copy of the plaint has been annexed to the civil revision application in each of these cases and it appears that the relief prayed for is a simple relief of declaration that the order or assessment and the certificates in the certificate cases are ultra vires and nullity and are not binding on the plaintiffs. No consequential relief has been mentioned in the plaint. It appears that the court below went into the question of the correctness of the averments made in the plaint and demanded additional court-fee on that basis. It is firmly established that for the decision on the question of court-fee the merits of the plaintiffs case is wholly irrelevant. If the view taken by the trial court is correct, the plaintiff might fail in the suit, but that is not a reason for demanding higher court-fee. As the plaints are constituted, it is clear that the declaratory court-fee paid on them will be sufficient. 3. In the result, these civil revision applications are allowed and the orders passed by the court below demanding additional court-fee from the plaintiff-petitioners are set aside. The plaints will be deemed to be sufficiently stamped. There will be no order as to costs. Applications allowed.