JUDGMENT Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. This revisional application is directed against order No. 55 dated 11.3.87 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Burdwan in Title Suit No. 142 of 1983 calling upon the petitioner to pay further Court fees of Rs. 5.671.85 p on his plaint. 2. The petitioner has filed the suit against the West Bengal State Electricity Board ('Board' for short) challenging the legality and validity of its demand for a further sum of Rs. 5,22,543.63 p for consumption of electricity in his Cold Storage and threat of disconnection of supply of electricity in case of non-payment. The petitioner has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Board from taking such a course of action on a declaration that the demand is void, illegal, ultra vires and not binding upon him. In paragraph 13 of the plaint the petitioner has averred that for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction the reliefs for declaration and injunction have been valued at Rs. 5,22,543.64 p and Rs. 99/- respectively and accordingly fixed Court fees of Rs. 10/- for declaration and ad valorem Court fees for injunction have been paid. 3. After entering appearance the Board questioned the sufficiency of the Court fees paid, contending that as the permanent injunction was a consequential relief the computation was to be made in accordance with s 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 ('Act' for short). In opposing the above contention the petitioner submitted that as the relief for injunction was an independent relief Court fees was rightly computed and paid in accordance with s 7(iv)(c) of the Act read with Art. 15(iii) under Schedule II of the Act. As the learned Judge accepted the contention of the Board, the petitioner has preferred the instant application. 4. In the context of the respective contentions of the parties the only point that falls for determination is whether for the purpose of the suit filed by the petitioner the amount of fee should be computed in accordance with clause (b) or clause (c) of s 7(iv) of the Act. It is trite law that for the purpose of computing the amount of Court fees to be paid in a particular suit the plaint has to be read as a whole. It is trite law that for the purpose of computing the amount of Court fees to be paid in a particular suit the plaint has to be read as a whole. Judged in that context it must be said that in the instant suit, permanent injunction has been sought for by the petitioner as a consequential relief to the declaration asked for. If it is declared that the Board's demand raised in the supplementary bill is illegal and unjustified then only the relief for permanent injunction can be granted. In other words, the relief of permanent injunction is not an independent relief and can not be granted without making the declaration asked for. In that view of the matter it must be held that the computation in the instant case has to be made in accordance with s 7(iv)(b) and not 7(iv)(c) of the Act. 5. Our attention was drawn on behalf of the petitioner to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Girish Chandra Sanyal v. Secretary of State reported in AIR 1928 Calcutta 55. Having carefully gone through the judgment, we are constrained to say that it does not support the case of the petitioner. On the contrary, it supports the contention of the Board. It has been held therein that the valuation should not be arbitrary and any device to evade the payment of proper Court fees by casting the prayers in a way so as to admit of lesser Court fees being paid should be guarded against and for that purpose it is necessary to look to the substance of the allegations made and of the reliefs sought for Judging the facts of that case in the light of the above principle the Court accepted the contention of the plaintiffs therein that the value of Injunction was the value of the suit In the instant case, as we have already noticed, the substance of the allegations made in the plaint clearly makes out that the petitioner has filed the suit for a declaration that the demand made by the Board was illegal and ultra vires and on cancellation thereof has prayed for the consequential relief of permanent in injunction to restrain the Board from disconnecting the power supply. Consequently the petitioner is liable to pay Court feet according to the amount at which the reliefs sought for are valued. Consequently the petitioner is liable to pay Court feet according to the amount at which the reliefs sought for are valued. In the result, the application fails and the same is hereby rejected. Sudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J : I agree Application rejected.