JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The controversy in this case relates to the court-fees payable in the suit. The core question is whether the fixed court-fee paid by the Plaintiff treating the suit as a declaratory suit is sufficient or ad valorem court-fee is to be paid on the valuation given in the plaint as directed by the trial Court. 2. The Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1988 in the Court of the Addl. Munsif, Boudh against the opp. Parties seeking a decree declaring the final order dated 3-7-1987 in Certificate Case No. 14 of 1987 of the Court of the Certificate Officer as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and the certificate amount is not to be recovered from the Plaintiff. 3. As stated in the plaint the suit is valued at Rs. 3541/-. It is further stated therein that being a declaratory suit, court-fee of Rs. 2250 is affixed on the plaint By the impugned order passed on 12-4-1989 the learned Addl. Munsif held that the suit is one for declaratory decree with consequential relief which comes u/s 7(iv)(sic) of the Court-fees Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore advalorem court-fee is to be paid on the valuation as stated by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, he required the Plaintiff to pay the balance court-fees. 4. From the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the point that needs determination is as formulated earlier. 5. On perusal of the averments made in the plaint, it appears that a sum of Rs. 3541/- was sought to be realised from the Plaintiff in the certificate case, C.C. No. 14 of 1987, on the allegations that the expenditure of the said amount had been spent irregularly by the Plaintiff who was the Sarpanch of Mathura Grama Panchayat for renovation of Debgarh tank without plea, estimate, measurement or check-measurement In the plaint the Plaintiff has denied his liability and responsibility for the alleged irregular expenditure of the amount which, as stated by him, had been spent on the basis of the resolution passed in the Grama Panchayat meeting. 6. 6. Section 42 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (O.P.D.R. Act) provides, inter alia, that certificate-debtor may, subject to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, at any time within six months bring a suit in a civil Court to have the certificate cancelled, or modified, and for any further consequential relief to which he may be entitled. The provision to the section enumerate the circumstances in which no suit shall be entertained. From the substance of the allegations in the plaint and the relief sought therein, it is manifest that the suit is one for cancellation or modification of the certificate' and comes within the purview of Section 42 of the O.P.D.R. Act. 7. Next, it is to be considered which provision of the Act governs the suit. Section 7(iv)(sic) of the Act applies to a suit to obtain declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed. Section 7(iv-A) which was introduced in the Act by Orissa Act V of 1939 provides, inter alia, that in a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or the document is sought to be cancelled the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or the other document executed; if a put of decree or other document is sought to be cancelled such part of the amount or value of the property. In the present case, as noticed earlier, Rs. 3541/- is the valuation of the suit and as stated in the certificate the same is realisable from the Plaintiff. For determination of the question whether the suit is merely a declaratory one or a declaratory one with consequential relief, the substance and not the language of the plaint is to be looked at, for a Plaintiff may nominally seek for a mere declaration but he may be essentially asking for a consequential relief as well. The form of relief by essentially asking for a consequential relief as well. The form of relief by itself does not determine the nature of the suit. The form of relief by essentially asking for a consequential relief as well. The form of relief by itself does not determine the nature of the suit. If on the averments made in the plaint, the substantial relief could not be other than one for a declaratory decree and it is coupled with another relief, which flows naturally in the wake of the declaration, then the case must be regarded as falling within Clause (c) of Sub-section (iv) of Section 7. In a suit in which the Plaintiff pray for a declaration that the certificate issued under, the Public Demands Recovery Act is void and of no effect, It is not a suit merely for a declaration in view of the further relief asked for namely, that the aforesaid certificate issued against him be declared to be void and ineffective against him. Therefore, the further relief is in the nature of consequential relief. Thus it becomes quite clear in view of the provision of Section 42 of O.P.D.R. Act, the suit in the present case was not a merely declaratory suit, but a declaratory suit with consequential relief for cancellation of the certificate. The learned trial Judge was therefore right in holding that the suit is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and the Plaintiff is to pay ad valorem court-fees on the valuation as stated by him in the plaint. 8. The revision petition, therefore, fails and it is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order for costs. Revision dismissed Final Result : Dismissed