ORDER L.C. Bhadoo, J. 1. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia the petitioner has questioned the legalipropriety and correctness of the order dated 6-4-2005 passed by learned 3rd Civil Judge, Class-2, Bilaspur, whereby learned Civil Judge while upholding the objection raised by respondents has ordered that objection raised by defendants is correct and the plaintiff is directed to correct valuation by the next date otherwise application filed by respondents herein under Order 7 Rule 11 (B) shall be accepted. 2. The question, which requires consideration by this Court, is that whether the plaintiff/the petitioner herein was required to pay ad valorem Court fee to value the suit filed by him under Section 7(iv) (c) or (d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short the Act). 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Court below with a prayer for issuance of the decree in favour of the petitioner and against defendants in the nature of permanent injunction that the defendants/respondents herein be prohibited from locking the business premises of the petitioner. 4. The above dispute arose in the following circumstances :- (A) The petitioner herein took loan of Rs. 90,000/- from the respondents herein in the year 1995 for the business purpose. He mortgaged his goods in favour of respondents herein, thereafter, he paid some installments, but he could not pay whole amount as per the agreement entered into between the parties. As per respondents claim, as on 1-3-2003 outstanding loan against the petitioner herein was Rs. 1,65,632/-. Accordingly, copy of the account was served upon the petitioner herein on 30th January, 2003 and thereafter on 24-2-2003 the Branch Manager of respondents namely Mr. Mathew along with his employees reached to the petitioner's shop and asked the petitioner to make payment of outstanding loan otherwise they would take into possession the petitioner's shop by putting a lock on the said shop. (B) Further case of the petitioner before the Trial Court is that the said statement of account is incorrect as the defendants/respondents herein have imposed interest and penalty as per their whims, which is incorrect. There was no agreement between the parties regarding payment of penal interest or penalty as such they are not entitled to realize the same. (B) Further case of the petitioner before the Trial Court is that the said statement of account is incorrect as the defendants/respondents herein have imposed interest and penalty as per their whims, which is incorrect. There was no agreement between the parties regarding payment of penal interest or penalty as such they are not entitled to realize the same. Even some of the amount is time barred on account of lapse 3 years' time, therefore, respondents are not entitled to recover the said amount. (C) It has further been mentioned in Para 6 of the plaint that if the defendants acts upon and take into possession shop and the same is locked, then the plaintiff/petitioner herein will be deprived of his business. In Para 8 of the plaint the suit has been valued for Rs. 300/- and the Court Fee of Rs. 60/- has been paid. The objection under Order 7 Rule 11 (B) of CPC has been raised by respondents herein that the petitioner herein has deliberately undervalued the suit. His prayer is to stall the recovery of Rs. 1,65,632/-, therefore, he is required to pay ad valorem fee on the same amount and as has been mentioned above, the said objection has been allowed by Trial Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Shri Ali Asgar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Sabina @ Farida (Smt.) v. Mohd. Abdul Wasit reported in 1997 (1) JLJ 105, argued that as the petitioner herein filed a civil suit against the respondents for permanent injunction to restrain them from entering into the petitioner's shop and locking the same is an illegal action, therefore, there is no question before the petitioner herein for claiming declaration and simply suit for injunction was maintainable, as such the suit has been correctly valued under Section 7(iv)(d) read with Article 17 of Schedule 2 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, Shri P.R. Patankar, learned Counsel for respondent argued that in sum and substance of the suit filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court is that he wants to restrain respondents herein from recovering the outstanding loan of Rs. 1,65,632/-, as such the petitioner was required to pay ad valorem fee on the said amount. 7. On the other hand, Shri P.R. Patankar, learned Counsel for respondent argued that in sum and substance of the suit filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court is that he wants to restrain respondents herein from recovering the outstanding loan of Rs. 1,65,632/-, as such the petitioner was required to pay ad valorem fee on the said amount. He placed reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Subhash Chand Jain v. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 2000(4) M.P.H.T. 318 : 2000(3) MPLJ 522. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the above decision has held that:- ... plaint has to be read as a whole. Allegations in the plaint including the substantive relief claim must be the basis for settling the Court fee payable by the plaintiff. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint would not gland the jurisdiction of Court for looking at the substance of the relief asked for. The nature of suit under Section 7(iv) is such where the Legislature could not lay down fixed standard thereby leaving it to the plaintiff to mention it. But where he attempts to under-value the plaint and relief, Court has to intervene. While doing so, concept of real money value forms integral part of Court enquiry where relief sought has real money value which can be objectively ascertained. Where a plaintiff has been made liable to pay specified amount and asked to pay the same and he claims to avoid it, obviously, he seeks relief to that effect and in case, he avoids payment of Court fee by drafting the plaint in such a way that results in under valuation of the plaint and the relief, it will be a case of arbitrary and unreasonable undervaluation which Court is bound to correct. Substantial relief asked for in the context of the facts of the case forms basis for settling correct Court fee payable in the cases. 8. Facts of that case were that the plaintiff was owing to pay an amount of Rs. 2,14,747/- regarding electric consumption. When the Electricity Board informed the petitioner that if he is not going to make payment of outstanding amount, then electricity supply will be disconnected. Being aggrieved by that, the consumer filed civil suit valuing the suit at Rs. 600/- and paid Court fee of Rs. 2,14,747/- regarding electric consumption. When the Electricity Board informed the petitioner that if he is not going to make payment of outstanding amount, then electricity supply will be disconnected. Being aggrieved by that, the consumer filed civil suit valuing the suit at Rs. 600/- and paid Court fee of Rs. 60/- accordingly. On that, the defendant raised objection regarding valuation and the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem Court fee, which was upheld by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a civil revision filed by the plaintiff. Whereas, in the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that :- It is settled law that if a person is in settled possession he can not be evicted except in accordance with law. Such a person if claims a declaration of his title and injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession then the relief of injunction is not consequence of the declaration because even if the Court is of the opinion that the declaration can not be made in favour of the plaintiff then too the Court will grant an injunction in favour of the person who is in settled possession. Such a person would be called upon to value both the reliefs separately and each of the reliefs would be independent of the other. In a suit of this nature the plaintiff is not seeking the relief of injunction as consequential relief but is entitled to claim the same because of his settled possession. In such a case Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act would be applicable for valuing the relief of injunction and Article 17 of Schedule II of the Act would provide the Court-fees for the said declaration. 9. Facts of this case were that the petitioner was in settled possession and she filed a suit with a prayer that the plaintiff/title-holder is in settled possession of the house and she is in exclusive possession. The defendant has no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. For the purposes of the declaration the plaintiff valued the suit for Rs. 3 lakhs, but however, paid the fixed Court fee under Schedule II Article 17 of the Court Fees Act and for the purposes of the injunction valued it for Rs. The defendant has no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. For the purposes of the declaration the plaintiff valued the suit for Rs. 3 lakhs, but however, paid the fixed Court fee under Schedule II Article 17 of the Court Fees Act and for the purposes of the injunction valued it for Rs. 300/- and paid Court fees Rs. 30/-, in all valued the suit for Rs. 3,00,300/- and paid Rs. 60/- as Court fees. The Court held that :- The true test for ascertaining whether the consequential relief in fact flows from the declaratory relief is as to whether the said consequential relief can be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantial relief or not. Every injunction in a suit for declaration would not flow from the declaration. In a case where plaintiff is in possession of the property in his own rights, comes before the Court and seeks declaration that the property belongs to him and the other party can not interfere with his possession then it can not be said that plaintiff is required to pay the ad valorem Court fee because the relief of injunction is a consequential relief. 10. Therefore, in the case relied upon by Counsel for the petitioner the learned Single Judge has laid down that the real test to determine the Court fee is that if relief sought for flow from the declaration of title, in that case the party is required to pay ad valorem Court fee. But, where a party can claim relief of injunction independently without asking for any declaration, in that case the party is not bound to pay ad valorem Court fee. 11. Sub-section (iv) (c) of Section 7 of the Act, which relates to computation of fees payable in certain suits, envisages that "to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed". The relief of injunction can not be granted without the declaration, therefore, the party is required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount against which declaration is to be sought, and as has been held by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the above cited case that concept of real money value forms integral part of Court enquiry where relief sought has real money value which can be objectively ascertained. Where a plaintiff has been made liable to pay specified amount and asked to pay the same and he claims to avoid it, obviously, he seeks relief to that effect and in case, he avoids payment of Court fee by drafting the plaint in such a way that results in under valuation of the plaint and the relief, it will be a case of arbitrary and unreasonable under- valuation which Court is bound to correct. 12. Bare reading of the plaint filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge shows that in fact as mentioned in Para 4 of the plaint that respondents gave a wrong statement of account to the tune of Rs. 1,65,632/- to the petitioner on 30th January, 2003 which was based on arbitrary interest and penalty, which was illegal and without any basis. The defendants are not entitled for the penal interest and the amount is time barred also. Further, that on 24-2-2003, the Branch Manager namely Mr. Mathew along with other employees came to the shop of the plaintiff/petitioner herein and threatened him to pay outstanding amount, failing which shop in question in which the plaintiff is running business shall be locked, whereas, the defendants in the written statement stated that they are entitled to recover the said amount as land revenue, attached whole goods, put lock and thereafter, to auction the goods in order to recover the amount for which notice was also given by the respondents. The respondents have asked for repayment of the amount in accordance with law. Therefore, in sum and substance, the petitioner's case is that the defendants/respondents herein are not entitled to recover the outstanding amount, as has been held by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that plaint has to be read as a whole. Allegations in the plaint including the substantive relief claim must be the basis for settling the Court fee payable by the plaintiff and where a plaintiff has been made liable to pay specified amount and asked to pay the same and he claims to avoid it, obviously, he seeks relief to that effect and in case, he avoids payment of Court fee by drafting the plaint in such a way that results in under valuation of the plaint and the relief, it will be a case of arbitrary and unreasonable undervaluation which Court is bound to correct. 13. 13. Therefore, in the substance, the plaint of the petitioner is to stall payment of outstanding amount and as per the principle laid down by the Full Bench of the M.P. High Court the petitioner/plaintiff is required to value the suit and to pay ad valorem fee on the outstanding amount. 14. The judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner of the Single Bench of the M.P. High Court, on facts, it has no relevance for the reason that facts of that case were that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the immovable property and only relief was sought that respondents should not interfere with the peaceful possession and in that background learned Single Judge hold that the suit was correctly valued by the plaintiff. 15. In the result, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, same does not require any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the pending applications stand disposed of.