Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision application under section 115 of CPC is filed by the state of Gujarat, challenging the rejection of Court Fee Reference No. 5/90 in Regular civil Suit No. 6/90 by judgment and order dated 3rd November, 1992 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Valsad. ( 2 ) ). The relevant and pertinent facts in this regard are as under:2. 1 The plaintiffs contended in the plaint that a ship by the name of MSV Jay Sagar, bearing registration No. DISS 2626, although registered in the name of someone else, was acquired from the funds of the HUF of which the plaintiffs and defendants are members. The plaintiffs, therefore, averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs have an interest in the said ship, and specified that such interest of the plaintiffs collectively is to the extent of 25%. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants are trying to physically remove the ship, and/or to dispose of the same and/or to deal with them in a manner detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs. They, therefore, filed a suit for appropriate permanent prohibitory injunction. During the pendancy of the suit the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), acting under section 12 and sectionl2 (3) of the Bombay Court Fees Act filed an application which resulted in the Court Fee Reference, wherein the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), contended that the plaintiffs valuation of the suit and the consequential court fees paid are incorrect, and court fees ought to have been paid on either the valuation of the ship or at the very least on an amount of one-fourth of the valuation of the ship. In other words, he contended that court fees as paid by the plaintiffs under Article 23 (0 under section 7 (iv) (j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act is incorrect and the correct assessment of the court fees should have been made under Article 7 under section 6 (iii) of the said Act. 22 The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the assessment of the court fees as made by the plaintiffs is correct and therefore rejected the court Fee Reference. It is this rejection order which is the subject matter of the present revision. ( 3 ) ). Mr. S. R. Divetia. 22 The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the assessment of the court fees as made by the plaintiffs is correct and therefore rejected the court Fee Reference. It is this rejection order which is the subject matter of the present revision. ( 3 ) ). Mr. S. R. Divetia. learned AGP appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded that for a correct appreciation of the nature and extent of the controversy, the proper approach would be to examine the plaint and the reliefs sought therein, in the context of the averments made. ( 4 ) ). After having examined the suit plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 6/90 the following facts emerge:4. 1 Although the suit plaint does contain various recitals in the nature of averments to the effect that the husband of plaintiff No. 1 died intestate, the said husband had a 25% interest in the ship in question, which interest devolves on the plaintiffs jointly. The plaint further contains various averments and recitals to the effect that the defendants are about to physically remove the ship, dispose of the same and/or to deal with it in a manner detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs, and that therefore, the plaintiffs are obliged to file the suit for appropriate permanent prohibitory injunction. ( 5 ) ). In the context of these averments we may now examine the relief sought Para 12 of the plaint specifically avers that the suit is for a permanent injunction and that therefore the suit is valued at Rs. 300/- and accordingly the court fee stamp of Rs. 30/- has been affixed upon the plaint Para 13 of the plaint contains the prayers and prayer (1) is both specific and explicit in this regard. On a reading of this relief it becomes clear that the plaintiffs have not sought any declaration as to ownership and/or joint ownership of the ship in question, nor have the plaintiffs sought any declaration in respect of any share in the said ship. The plaintiffs have also not sought any relief as regards partition nor have they sought any relief as regards rendition of accounts or any share in the income or any accounting of income in the hands of the defendants. The plaintiffs have also not sought any relief as regards partition nor have they sought any relief as regards rendition of accounts or any share in the income or any accounting of income in the hands of the defendants. The prayer made is in fact unambiguous and is not capable of any other meaning except that the plaintiffs have sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, etc. from physically taking away the ship into the sea, and restraining them from transferring, assigning, renting it out or dealing with the same in any manner which would be detrimental to the. interest of the plaintiffs Thus in fart and substance the shin is not really the subject matter of the suit as such, but the subject matter is the protection of the. professed Interest of the plaintiffs in the ship. This interest in the ship is not to be confused with the share in the ship. As already pointed out hereinabove, the plaintiffs have not sought any declaration as to the share and/or partition of the ship in question. ( 6 ) ). It is, therefore, obvious that the trial court was correct arid justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit is for a mere injunction and, therefore, the valuation of the suit at Rs. 300/- and the consequential court fees at Rs. 30/- is proper and justified. The trial court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the Court Fee Reference. This revision must, therefore, fail and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .