Short Note : 1. The non-applicant obtained a money-decree against the applicant in the Court of District Judge, Kota. Applicant alleged that no summons of the suit were ever served on any of its partners. The decree passed against it by the District Judge, Kota, in favour of the non-applicant, was therefore said to be a nullity and as such not executable. Objection by the non-applicant was that the relief although ingeniously expressed in a declaratory form is inclusive of the relief of cancellation of the decree passed in favour of the non-applicant. The plaint, therefore, was liable to be stamped under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. The learned District Judge upholding the objection by the impugned order directed the applicant to pay advalorem Court Fees on the value the decree. . Held: The applicant-plaintiff was party to the suit before the District Judge. Kota. A decree has been passed by the Court against the applicant. The only challenge is that such a decree has been obtained without actual service of summons on the applicant. It is a same thing to say that service of the appellant has been obtained by fraud in the suit at Kota. Obviously the decree is good, unless set aside. It is significant that the applicant claims a relief that the decree is not executable against it. It is, thus, obvious that the applicant wants to avoid the effect of the decree passed against it by the District Judge Kota. It, therefore, really seeks the cancellation of that decree and as such this relief is necessarily involved in its prayer quoted above. The applicant, therefore, has been correctly adjudged liable to pay Court-fee under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. Shamsher Singh, v. Rajendra Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 2384 , Baldeo Singh v. Gopal Singh, 1967 JLl 350, Sri Krishna v. Mahabir, AIR 1933 All. 488, Kedar Nath v. Moti Kuar, AIR 1961 Pat. 240 , Girraj v. Sri Krishna, AIR 1957 Nag. 52, Rup Rani v. Bithaldas, AIR 1938 Oudh. 1, Rup v. Bhatu Mahat, AIR 1957 Nag. 53, Ratan Singh v. Raghu Rajsingh, AIR 1946 Nag. 30, Ashok Jagannath v. Narsingh Rao, 1975 JLJ 395 , referred to. Revision dismissed.