JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the defendants. 2. It appears that the Opposite Parties 3 to 6 filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Bahraich, against the petitioner in which they claimed the relief of injunction for restraining the petitioners (defendants) from disturbing their possession over the grove plot no. 473 kha and 476. They also prayed that the petitioners (defendants) may be restrained from holding any cattle fair on that land. Opposite Party No. 9 who was said to be a cotenure holder of the aforesaid grove plots with the plaintiffs, was also impleaded as a defendant in that suit, on the ground that he had allowed the petitioners to hold a cattle fair on those plots. 3. The petitioners raised an objection about valuation of the suit. The question was decided against them by the trial court, by its judgment and order dated 6.8.1981. The defendants thereafter filed revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the Court of the District Judge which was ultimately disposed of by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Bahraich, by his judgment and order dated 20.2.1982. The revision was dismissed. The defendants have now come up in the writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The valuation clause of the plaint has been read out to me by the learned counsel representing Opposite Parties No. 3 to 8. It has been stated that for the purposes of jurisdiction the suit is valued at 30 times of the land revenue of Rs. 81.50 i.e. at Rs. 2460 (although the figure should have been Rs. 2445) and for the purposes of injunction it was valued at Rs. 815, i.e. 10 times of Rs. 81.50. Since it was a suit for injunction, a court fee of Rs. 22.50 was paid on l/5th of Rs. 815.00. 6. Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that the property involved in the suit was the cattle fair and since the suit was for a decree for injunction for restraining the petitioners from holding the cattle fair in the grove plots in question, the suit should have been valued on the basis of the income from the cattle fair. I am not prepared to accept this submission. 7. I am not prepared to accept this submission. 7. Section 7 (ivB) (b) provides that a suit to obtain injunction has to be valued according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. There is a proviso, however, which says that such amount shall not be less than onefifth of the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought or Rs. 200 whichever is greater. Explanation I provides that when the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, the market value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with subsection (v), (vA) or (vB) of this section, as the case may be. Section 7(vA) provides that where the property involved in the suit is the revenue paying property, the value shall be determined by multiplying by 10 the annual rent. 8. Since the property involved in the instant case were the two grove plots no. 473 kha and 476, the plaintiffs were fully justified in valuing their suit by multiplying by 10 the annual rent payable in respect of those grove plots and paying a court fee on l/5th of the valuation so determined as it was a suit for injunction. The contention of Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava that the property involved in the suit were not the grove plots but the cattle fair which was being held by the defendants, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the cattle fair itself is held on those two grove plots. Ultimately it is the grove plots which would be affected by the relief of injunction. 9. It, however, appears that the plaintiffs had claimed two reliefs, (i) that the defendants may be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff, joint possession over the plots in question and (ii) that the defendants may also be restrained from holding the cattle fair on those plots. The plaintiffs, therefore, ought 10 have paid another court fee of Rs. 22.50 on the other separate and distinct relief of injunction. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent that opposite parties No. 3 to 6 shall be required to pay another court fee of Rs. 22.50 on the plaint. The petition, in other respects, is dismissed. The interim order, if any, is vacated. The parties shall bear their own costs. (Petition allowed partly)