JUDGMENT P.K, PALLI, J.—This order shall dispose of the revision petition which is directed against the order dated March 11, 1998 passed by the trial Court whereby an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners/defendants stands rejected. The parties, here-in-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the notices issued by defendant No. 3 for the recovery of electricity charges are illegal, void, arbitrary and a decree of permanent injunction has been claimed restraining the defendants from effecting the recovery of the amount from the plaintiffs. 3. An application was filed by the defendants that the plaint should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code as the plaintiffs had intentionally undervalued the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The application having been rejected, the present revision petition has been filed to lay challenge to it. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants has taken me through the entire plaint, particularly, the prayer which is made in the suit. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the plaintiffs in para 9 of the plaint has fixed the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and for relief of declaration and injunction at Rs. 130/- and Court fee of Rs. 19-50 paise has been affixed on the plaint and Rs. 13/- has been affixed for the purposes of relief of declaration and injunction. 5. In the prayer, the plaintiffs have stated that the defendants be restrained from effecting the recovery of the amount mentioned in the notices and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed against them. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, in support of his contentions, relies upon 1995 (2) PLR Delhi 28, (Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Company Limited v. Union of India); AIR 1973 SC 2384, (Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others); AIR 1997 Gauhati 119, (Assam State Electricity Board Guwahati and others v. Borjalinga Tea Company and another); 1992 (2) Shim. L.C. 33, (Smt Bhagwanti Devi and another v. Shri Devi Ram) and 1988 (2) SCC 575, (Abdul\ Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid and others). 7. L.C. 33, (Smt Bhagwanti Devi and another v. Shri Devi Ram) and 1988 (2) SCC 575, (Abdul\ Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid and others). 7. On the basis of the case law, learned Counsel contends that the plaintiff has clearly attempted to evade the Court fee by framing the suit in a clandestine manner and filing it on the basis of declaration, permanent injunction whereas, in fact, he is trying to avoid his liability to pay the electricity charges mentioned in the notices and the suit should have been valued on the amount mentioned in the notices issued by the Board. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs Mr. K.D. Sood, in reply, has adopted the reasoning given by the trial Court in the impugned order. Reliance is further placed on Section 7 (4)(c) of the Court Fees Act that the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of declaration as well as injunction and it is for the plaintiff to put his own valuation in the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on AIR 1961 SC 1299, (Sri Rathnavarmarajav. Smt Vimla); AIR 1978 Punjab (FB) 25, (M/s. Arjan Motors Maloutv. Girdhara Singh and others) and 1969 PLR 543, (Shri Mathra Dass v. Ram Kali and another). 9. Learned Counsel further contends that the plaintiffs are aggrieved against the issuance of the notices by the defendants and challenge has been made to these notices and for that purpose the suit has been correctly valued. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the case law, I find that the question of Court fee which the plaintiffs are required to pay, is basically a question which would arise between the plaintiffs and the State. As per case law cited from the side of the plaintiffs, the order passed by the Court in this respect is not open for revision. 11. In the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra), both the judgments one cited by Mr. Kuldip Singh and the other cited by Mr. K.D. Sood, i.e. AIR 1973 SC 2384 and AIR 1961 SC 1299 (supra), have been noticed and followed. 11. In the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra), both the judgments one cited by Mr. Kuldip Singh and the other cited by Mr. K.D. Sood, i.e. AIR 1973 SC 2384 and AIR 1961 SC 1299 (supra), have been noticed and followed. As may be seen that the Court Fees Act has been brought for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting defendant with a weapon of offence to obstruct the trial of suit. Following the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 2384 (supra), it was held that the question of Court fee cannot be agitated in a petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 12. Admittedly, the electricity supply was dis-connected to the plaintiffs vide notices which have been challenged in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. As per calculations of the defendants, the plaintiffs had mis-used energy for the amounts mentioned in the notices. Consequently, the plaintiffs were directed to deposit the amount for the purposes of re-connection. 13. Challenge has been made by the plaintiffs to the notices as illegal, void, arbitrary and mala fide and the plaintiffs have further claimed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the power supply or its restoration. 14. The plaint has to be read as a whole and not in piece meal. As per law, Court fee is to be computed on the value given by the plaintiffs in the plaint. In the opinion, the plaintiffs have correctly valued their suit for the purposes of Court fee as well as jurisdiction. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, error of jurisdiction or any other infirmity. The revision petition is, thus, ordered to be dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.