Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision has been filed by the State of Gujarat through the inspecting Officer (Court Fees) Surat from proceedings arising from Regular Civil Suit no. 148 of 1991. The present respondent No. 1 had filed the suit as plaintiff against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case, as set out in the plaint, was to the effect that he has an electric connection No. R. 434 at his residential premises that he pays regularly the consumption charges for electricity consumed through the meter that due to certain grievances against him the second defendent had visited his residence on 13th August 1992 and on false allegations of theft of power and misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, the second defendant had taken away the electric meter that thereafter the plaintiff was presented an additional bill for Rs. 6,066. 36 ps. followed up by a notice dated 10th September 1991 threatenting disconnection in case of non-payment of the said bill. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he had not committed any theft of electricity nor any misconduct in respect of the meter, that there was nothing wrong with the meter and that the procedure followed by the second defendant on 13th August 1992 during his visit to the plaintiffs residence was totally illegal unwarrnted and malafide. The plaintiff therefore sought a declaration that the procedure followed by the second defendant on 13th August 1991 was illegal and also that the consequential notice dated 10th September 1991 was also illegal. The plaintiff further prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said notice threatening disconnection for non-payment of the bill in question. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 300 and affixed the court fee stamp of Rs. 30 on the plaint apparently on relying upon the provisions of Section 6 (iv) (i) of the Bombay court Fees Act, 1959. ( 4 ) THE Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), Surat, functining under Section 12 of the said act, filed his report in the said proceedings at Exh 16 which was numbered as Court Fees reference No. 72 of 1991 under Section 12 (3) of the said Act. ( 4 ) THE Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), Surat, functining under Section 12 of the said act, filed his report in the said proceedings at Exh 16 which was numbered as Court Fees reference No. 72 of 1991 under Section 12 (3) of the said Act. In the opinion of the inspecting Officer (Court Fees) the plaintiffs suit would not be classified under Section 6 (iv) (i) of the said Act on the facts and circumstances of the case as set out in the report but would be covered by Article 7, Schedule I of the said Act. The said officer therefore prayed that the Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees namely Rs. 420/- ( 5 ) THE Trial Court after hearing the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) and the parties passed an order below Exh 16 and rejected the Court Fees Reference in question by holding that the suit should be classified under Section 6 (iv) (i) of the Bombay Court Fees act and that therefore the court fees paid by the plaintiff at Rs, 30 on the valuation of the suit at Rs. 300 is correct. It is this order which has been challenged by the State in the present revision. In our opinion, the Trial Court has unnecessarily confused itself buy referring to the various decisions of this Court, simply because it has failed to appreciate the true scope and ambit of such decisons. The only principle, which the Trial Court needs to keep in mind is that the language used in the plaint and the frame of the suit as also the phraseology of the prayer is not the crux of the matter and does not determine the correct valuation of the suit and the classification of the suit in terms of the approriate provision of the said Act. What really matters is the substance of the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the suit irrespective of the language used in the prayer clause. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court has clearly failed to appreciate that the substance of the plaintiffs case is that he was presented with an electric bill of Rs. 6. 066. 36 ps. and threatend with disconnection of electric supply in case the bill is not paid. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court has clearly failed to appreciate that the substance of the plaintiffs case is that he was presented with an electric bill of Rs. 6. 066. 36 ps. and threatend with disconnection of electric supply in case the bill is not paid. All the other contentions raised in the suit and averments made in the nature of a plea, pertain only to the reasons supplied by the plaintiff on the basis of which he seeks a declaration that the procedure followed by the second respondent on the specified day during the latters visit to the residential premises of the plaintiff is illegal and of no effect. Thus in effect as also in fact and in substance what the plaintiff contends is that the bill in question is not enforceable what the plaintiff really wants is that the Court should declare that the bill is not enforceable and that consequently his electric supply should not be disconnected for non-payment of the bill which is not enforceable. ( 7 ) THE Trial Court has clearly misdirected itself in observing and holding that if the plaintiff had only challenged the notice dated 10th September 1991 threatening disconnection for non-payment of the bill or if he had challenged the bill, then the proper valuation of the suit would have been Rs. 6. 066. 36 ps. However, according to the Trial Court merely because the plaint contained averments that he has not committed any theft of power not has he tampered with the meter, and because he has challenged the procedure followed by the second defendant in removing the meter from the premises, getting it tested and having come to the conclusion that the same had been tampered with and having submitted the bill in question, the plaintiff has merely challenged the procedure. According to the Trial Court the relief sought by the plaintiff is only as regards the procedure followed by the second defendant, and that thereby the plaintiff has not in substance challenged the bill. Obviously, this interpretation of the plaint on the part of the Trial Court is grossly erroneous and cannot be accepted. According to the Trial Court the relief sought by the plaintiff is only as regards the procedure followed by the second defendant, and that thereby the plaintiff has not in substance challenged the bill. Obviously, this interpretation of the plaint on the part of the Trial Court is grossly erroneous and cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THE Trial Court has over-emphasized the averments in the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff has not committed any theft of power and that the meter was in proper working condition and that the bill in respect of the alleged theft of power is a result of the illegal procedure followed by the second defendant. Clearly, the Trial Court has put the cart before the horse. It also appears that the trial Court was led astray by sympathetic considerations rather than the strict application of the statutory provisions applicable to the facts of the case. The Trial court has observed as under:"the defts may demand any amount from any consumer by alleging misconduct and power theft against him and the consumer may have to rush to the court for challenge the socalled misconduct and power theft and demand of Bill. It would not be proper to value the suit every time on the socalled bill given by the defts, G. E. Board which are merely given on relying upon the socalled allegation of power theft or misconduct. The amount of socalled Bill for the socalled alleged misconduct may be too high and it would not be proper and legal to say that the plff should pay court fees stamp on amount of socalled Bill given by the G. E. Board for the socalled alleged misconduct or power theft. " ( 9 ) IN the premises aforesaid, it is obvious that the Court has misdirected itself on account of sympathetic considerations for the plaintiff, and has consequently lost sight of the appropriate provision applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 10 ) THE Trial Court found that the valuation based by the plaintiff upon the suit claim under Section 6 (iv) (i) of the said Act is correct and proper. ( 10 ) THE Trial Court found that the valuation based by the plaintiff upon the suit claim under Section 6 (iv) (i) of the said Act is correct and proper. Section 6 (iv) (i) of the said Act read as under:" (I) In suits where declaration is sought with or without injunction or other consequential relief and the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary valuation and which are not otherwise provided for by this Act-thirty rupees. " ( 11 ) IT is obvious that in order that this provision should be applicable two important criteria must be satisfied. Firstly a subject matter in dispute must not be susceptible of monetary evaluation and secondly the subject matter in dispute must be such which is not otherwise provided for by the Act. Obviously on, the facts of the case neither, of this criteria are met. As already discussed hereinabove, the subject matter of the suit in reality is the bill in question which is obviously susceptible of monetary evaluation secondly Section 6 (iv) (i) had no application also for the reason that such a suit would be covered by Article 7, Schedule I of the said Act which contemplates a claim "to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss. " ( 12 ) IN the premises aforesaid, the impugned order is clearly illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. Court Fee Reference no. 72 of 1991 in Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 1991, is allowed. The plaintiff shall pay the deficit court fees as chargeable under Article 7, Schedule I of the said Act, within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the Yadi by the Trial Court. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision is allowed. Rule is made absolute with costs. Yadi to be sent to the Trial Court forthwith. .