JUDGMENT The impugned order is passed on 7.7.1989 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The plaint is rejected for non-payment of proper court-fees. As defendant-respondents have not been noticed in the trial Court, they are not to be heard in this matter at this stage. On the other hand, I am of the view that the order passed is not a just and proper order and that is not sustainable in law. Fresh order in accordance with law shall be passed for reasons to follow. One of the ground rightly urged by the learned counsel is that the suit was instituted on 22.2.1989 and several orders were passed on several dates prior to 7.7.1989 but the trial Court never indicated as to what was the deficit court-fee that had to be made up. It was also not indicated why court-fees filed was deficient. Records have come and those are perused. With the plaint, Court-fees in the sum of Rs. 30/- was filed. As per Clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC the trial Court is required to indicate reasons when the plaint is found not sufficiently stamped and to indicate also the requisite stamp paper which are to be filed within the time fixed by the trial Court. As per clause (b) thereof however, it is also necessary to examine if the relief was under valued and if not then only the order contemplated under Clause (c) could be passed. It is, therefore, rightly contended that although in the cause trial the suit was valued at Rs.4,90,200/-, that should be taken as valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction, and that the suit being a declaratory suit the fixed court-fees ought to have been treated sufficient. However, in my view, after reading the plaint it is not possible to accept that submission. In relief prayer Para 10 (A) there is definite claim made by the plaintiff for recovery of damages from the defendant for defamation. At para 2 of the plaint the libel is set out which is in the form of a letter dated 4.6.1988 addressed to the High Court Bar Association by the defendant. In relief prayer Para 10 (A) there is definite claim made by the plaintiff for recovery of damages from the defendant for defamation. At para 2 of the plaint the libel is set out which is in the form of a letter dated 4.6.1988 addressed to the High Court Bar Association by the defendant. In my view the trial Court should have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to correctly value the plaint to make it clear if the suit was as for recovery of the amount aforesaid on account of defamation or the value given was for purpose of jurisdiction. It would have been competent for the plaintiff to amend the plaint and, if so advised, to claim recovery of nominal damages only. If that was done there could be no question of payment of any deficit court-fees. In these circumstances, the impugned order, for the reason aforesaid, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to give a fresh hearing to the plaintiff-appellant and also an opportunity to him to amend the plaint, if so advised, which shall be taken back on file for that purpose. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above direction. In the Court below the appellant shall appear on 1.10.1991 to take further orders there at.