K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13-12-1989 passed by the learned 4th Joint civil Judge [s. D. ] Rajkot whereby he dismissed the Court Fees Reference No. 52 of 1988 in favour of the Opponent-Plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE Opponent-Plaintiff is a partnership firm doing the business of selling coconut oil products etc. at Rajkot and accordingly used to import and bring within the limits of Rajkot Municipal corporation the aforesaid goods manufactured at Kerala Madras and also other overseas countries namely Dubai and Saudi Arabia. It is the further case of the Opponent-Plaintiff that after importing and bringing the said goods at Rajkot it was exporting the same in its original and intact position to the various parts of Gujarat meaning thereby the goods in question cannot be said to have been imported within the municipal limits of Rajkot liable to pay any octroi duty It is further alleged that despite this fact since the Municipal Corporation has illegally recovered the huge amount of Octroi on the goods so alleged to have been imported by it it was entitled to gent refund of the same. It is also the say of the Opponent-Plaintiff that in Special Civil Application (number not given) filed by it this High Court has ordered the Corporation to refund the octroi amount to the Opponent-Plaintiff within 15 days from the date of the order however since it failed to comply with the same it was constrained to bring about the present suit the same being Regular Civil Suit No. 1147 of 1988 before the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Rajkot against the Corporation inter alia praying for the following reliefs :[a] to allow this suit ;[b] to issue an interim injunction in the form of permanent injunction restraining the respondent recovering the octroi duty from the petitioner and against thereof debit the account of the petitioner with the amount of octroi duty payable when the goods of the petitioners are brought in the octroi limit of the respondents. ( 3 ) PENDING suit proceedings the Inspecting officer of Court Fees with a view to find out whether the proper court fees have been paid or not on examining the plaint cam to know that the court fees payable as per Article 7 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 [for short the Act] was not paid. He accordingly by the report dated 2-12-1988 brought the said fact to the notice of the Court which came to be registered as Court Fees Reference No. 52 of 1988. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed the reference as stated above in para-1 of this judgment mainly on two grounds viz. [i] that looking to the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff was not in a position to ascertain the exact amount of octroi refundable and that it was for the said reason only that it has been further averred in the plaint that the amount to be refunded was approximately and [ii] that the amount of refund can never be decided without rendition of account and therefore when the amount in question was unascertainable under Section 7 of the Act the plaintiff has a right to place nay value in the suit as it likes etc. It is this order of dismissal of reference which has been challenged before this Court by way of present Civil Revision Application. ( 5 ) MR. K. C. Shah the learned AGP while challenging the impugned order submitted that the same on face of it is ex-facie illegal and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. According to the learned AGP the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated and applied the correct principles regarding valuation of the suit and calculation of the court fees based on true reading of the plaint in the light of the provisions of the Act. The learned AGP further submitted that in fact the learned Trial-Judge has misread the plain while passing the impugned order. It was further submitted by the learned AGP that the suit in unmistakable forms was to obtain a substantial relief which was capable of monetary evaluation inasmuch as the same was ultimately for the refund of octroi duties alleged to have been illegally recovered. It was further submitted by the learned AGP that the suit in unmistakable forms was to obtain a substantial relief which was capable of monetary evaluation inasmuch as the same was ultimately for the refund of octroi duties alleged to have been illegally recovered. In fact it was within the special knowledge of the Plaintiff as to what amount it has paid by way of octroi duty to the Corporations as in the document Mark 4/1 the amount claimed is shown to-be to the tune of Rs. 1 31 649 When such is an unescapable position by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the valuation or the suit would be governed by Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions it was finally urged by the learned AGP that this civil Revision Application be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial-Judge be quashed and set-aside and the Opponent- Plaintiff be directed to pay the deficit court fees on the suit amount of Rs. 1 31 649 ( 6 ) AS against the above Mr. R. M. Ruparel the learned advocate for the Opponent-Plaintiff submitted that the Court should not travel beyond tha averments made in the plaint. He submitted that the word approximately was indicative enough to convey that the plaintiff was not in a position to submit what was the exact amount to be refunded. Mr. Ruparel further submitted that the suit out of which the present reference arises already stands withdrawn. Not only that but thereafter on the very subject matter other suit was filed praying for the refund of the octroi amount and that the appropriate court fees have been duly paid thereupon. In that view of the matter once the suit [out or which the present civil Revision application arises] no more exists as it stands withdrawn there is no question of asking the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees and accordingly his revision application deserves to be dismissed with costs. ( 7 ) NOW having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties quite at length. ( 7 ) NOW having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties quite at length. at the very outset it may he staled that on perusal of the plaint it clearly transpires that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge being ex- facie contrary to the bare reading of the plaint and the law governing the Court fees the same shall have to be quashed and set-aside. There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that the suit in question being a suit for the refund of octroi duly it was essentially a money suit. Rather it is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has not cared to appreciate the averments made in paragraph 12 and prayer Clause-14 as well as document Mark 4/1 appended to the plaint in proper perspective wherein the amount claimed is shown to be to the tune of Rs. 1 31 649 It appears that the reference has been decided quite perfunctionarily inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge has misread the plaint which has resulted into patently illegal decision on the point of Court fees to be paid by the Opponent-Plaintiff. From the careful perusal of plaint it is indeed clear that the plaintiff had claimed refund of octroi amount paid by him to the Defendant-Corporation As per the account produced at Mark 4/1 an amount of Rs. 1 31 649 was sought to he refunded to the plaintiff by the Defendant-Corporation Thus the subject matter of the suit being amount of octroi to be refunded to the plaintiff it is clearly susceptible to the monetary evluation to that extent. In other words the refund of octroi asked for by he plaintiff is the substantive relief quit capable of being valued both in forms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss to the extent of Rs. 1 31 649 Accordingly the plaintiff is liable to pay full ad-valorem court fees of Rs. 3 700 thereupon. However since he has paid Court fees of Rs. 30/- only and as there is deficit of Rs. 3 670 the plaintiff is bound to make good the same. Further the learned trial-Judge was clearly in error in resorting to Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Court Fees Act which comes into play only when two conditions are fulfilled viz. However since he has paid Court fees of Rs. 30/- only and as there is deficit of Rs. 3 670 the plaintiff is bound to make good the same. Further the learned trial-Judge was clearly in error in resorting to Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Court Fees Act which comes into play only when two conditions are fulfilled viz. [i] that there was no other provision applicable [ii] that the subject matter of the suit was not susceptible to the monetary valuation. In the instant case both these conditions are not satisfied. Further this cannot be said to be a suit ever for the declaration or injunction simplicitor as the Opponent-Plaintiff itself admitted that the High Court granted declaration in its favour merely because the relief clause was so worded. It is of course true that in para-6 of the plaint it is averred that the petitioners are entitled to refund of octroi amount approximately of the period aforesaid etc. etc. Now the mere using of the word approximately is nothing but a clever and estute way of drafting the plaint for the purposes of running away from paying the advalorem court fees The Courts deciding such court fee matters are not supposed to blindly hall and stop at such tricky words used in the plaint without going through the substance and the reliefs prayed and the documents appended to the plaint. In all such matters it is indeed the bounden duty of the Court to screen-through the pleadings and find out the true nature of the suit and the ultimate reliefs prayed for. As staled above document Mark 4 clearly shows that the plaintiff was claiming the amount of Rs. 1 31 649 from the Municipal Corporation by way of refund of octroi duly. Not only that it if we peruse the reliefs prayed for in paragraph 14 of the plaint it is further clear that the plaintiff in substance had asked for the refund of the octroi duty by seeking the direction to debit the same to adjust the account of the plaintiff with the amount of octroi duly that may be payable whenever the goods of the petitioner was to be brought within the limits of the Corporation. Further as regard another submission of Mr. Further as regard another submission of Mr. Ruparel that since the suit out of which the present revision application arises stands already withdrawn the plaintiff now should not be saddled with deficit court fees on the said suit the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that so far as paying of the court fees is concerned what is to be primarily seen is whether at the time of filing of the suit or thereafter sufficient and adequate court fees are paid or not. If that was not paid subsequent withdrawal does not wipe off the deficit court fees to be paid subsequently. Merely because after withdrawing the first suit the plaintiff has filed another suit praying for refund of octroi amount by paying advalorem court fees that by itself is not sufficient ground for this court not to order paying of the deficit court fees on the suit already withdrawn. In this view of the matter it is indeed not open to this Court to take into consideration the subsequent event that is to say the withdrawal of the suit and condone the non-paying of the deficit court fees thereupon by the plaintiff in its first suit. of course this Court by way of justice is duly bound to observe that in case as alleged by Mr. Ruparel the present suit was withdrawn then in that case moment the deficit court fees amount is paid the plaintiff would be at liberty to move the concerned court for permissible refund under the Act and such application would be decided by the concerned court as expeditiously as possible. ( 8 ) INCIDENTALLY it is required to be observed that in a given case may be because of estute drafting in order to avoid the proper amount of Court fees to be paid on the plaint real nature of suit is cleverly camouflaged to hide/cover the real face and nature of the same. May be that is considered to be an an and the act of the concerned learned advocate but at the sametime the Court is not expected to be gullible enough to take such plaint/pleadings at its face value by putting common sense in the cold storage. May be that is considered to be an an and the act of the concerned learned advocate but at the sametime the Court is not expected to be gullible enough to take such plaint/pleadings at its face value by putting common sense in the cold storage. Thus it is the duty of every Court to pierce clear and/or lift the veil of crafty drafting and screen through it to find out the real nature of suit in order to asertain the proper court fees to be paid as warranted under the Court Fees Act. For example in the instant case supposing - document Mark 4/1 was not appended to the plaint and available on record and further the relief clause was also framed in such a manner that ** ** ** ** ** it would not give any semblance of doubt that it was a money suit then even having regard to the facts of the case in order to find out what would be the proper court fees the Court was expected to analyse the overall facts and circumstances of the case by putting certain questions to itself. For example in the first instance the trial court ought to have asked itself a question - who was the plaintiff Now the answer obviously is that he is a businessman of a big running concern. This clearly indicates he is a estute man who was bound to maintain books of accounts in his regular course of business and accordingly was further bound to know what was the exact octroi amount paid by him on particular dates to the Corporation on the particular goods imported. Thus all these facts obviously must be within his personal knowledge and therefore he cannot take a convenient shelter feigning ignorance that though the amount is paid to the Corporation he does not know what is the exact amount and even if such ignorance is feigned to accept such ignorance and innocence would be simply a violence on the common sense Merely because plaintiff avers that amount to be recovered was approximate that was indeed nothing but crafty and fraudulent averment made with a view to run away from putting proper court fees. Be it a matter of public revenue the Court fees or any money suit prima facie in such type of cases it is reasonable to inter that the plaintiff would always ordinarily be in a position to know the exact maximum amount due from the otherside and in that view of the matter he was supposed to be fair and honest enough to come with clean hands before the Court to pay-up the required Court fees as warranted under the Court Fees Act. Thus whenever the plaintiff takes up any defence in order to avoid payment of the requisite Court fees it is the duty of the Court concerned to guage his intention from the attending facts and circumstances as highlighted above as under no circumstances the dishonest plea of avoiding the Court fees can be permitted to be sustained adversely reflecting upon the Court revenue by way of Court fees. The reason why the Court has to be alert in deciding the Reference for the Court Fees is when the same is lightly disposed of as has been done in the instant case the same may indirectly result into increasing of the Court fees as ultimately the increasing court expenses are to be meted out of the Court fees alone In this view of the matter there is no difficulty in holding that the learned Judge has committed an obvious and patent error in dismissing the ** ** ** ** ** Reference on the basis of Sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Act which pertains to the matter where the dispute is not susceptible to monetary evaluation and which is not otherwise provided by the Act. Moreover to say that the present suit is not susceptible to the monetary evaluation would be on the one hand not carefully reading and screening the plaint and on the other hand is ignorance of the Court fees Law. Thus taking into consideration the amount of refund claimed viz. Rs. 1 31 649 the plaintiff was liable to pay full advalorem Court Fees of Rs. 3 700 Now since the amount of Rs. 30 only is already paid by way of court fees the Opponent-plaintiff shall have to pay the deficit amount of Rs. 3 670 by way of Court fees. Rs. 1 31 649 the plaintiff was liable to pay full advalorem Court Fees of Rs. 3 700 Now since the amount of Rs. 30 only is already paid by way of court fees the Opponent-plaintiff shall have to pay the deficit amount of Rs. 3 670 by way of Court fees. It is indeed unfortunate that the learned Judge has not made any serious attempt to peruse the record and find out what would be the proper court-fees and instead had mechanically disposed of the same on the general observations which have been quoted above in para-3 of this judgment. ( 9 ) IN the result this Civil Revision Application is allowed with cost. The Court Fees Reference No. 52 of 1988 is also allowed. The impugned Order dismissing the Reference is hereby quashed and set-aside. Plaintiff is accordingly directed to pay up the deficit Court fees of Rs. 3 670 on or before 20th February 1994 failing which the learned trial Judge shall issue a certificate for the recovery of the Court Fees amount as envisaged under Section 12 (6) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. Rule made absolute. Rule Made Absolute. .