JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. — In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit No.91 of 2009 directing the petitioner to pay the balance Court fees under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act (in short, “the Act”). 2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows : The petitioner is a Joint Venture between Progressive Con¬structions Ltd. (in short, “PCL”) having its Head Office at Hyderabad and Administrative Office at New Delhi and Saudi AL-Terais Trading Industries Contracting Co. Ltd. (in short, “STIC¬CO”) with its registered office at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It re¬ceived a work order from opposite party No.1 for “Widening to 4/6 lanes and strengthening of existing 2 lanes carriageway of NH 5 from Km. 284.000 to Km. 338.000 (Ganjam to Sunakhela) in the State of Orissa (Project Chainage from Km. 284.000 to Km. 339.713) Contract Package OR-VII”. Opposite party No.1 has been entrusted with the development, maintenance and management of National Highways Development Project on the Golden Quadrilateral connecting the four Metros. It, after receipt of the said work order, furnished bank guarantee on 3.8.2005, 12.8.2005 and 17.8.2005 and the said bank guarantee was extended by the ICICI Bank Ltd. as requested by it despite the expiry of the bank guarantee on 2.8.2006 & 11.8.2008 and 16.8.2006. The said bank guarantee was not renewed. However, opposite parties 1 & 3 pres¬surized the bank for making payment of Rs.2,14,04,445/- from the account of the petitioner. Although the bank guarantee expired by August, 2008, the same stood discharged upon the invocation of the said guarantees on 4.4.2008 and payment of entire bank guar¬antees of Rs.8.60 crores being made pursuant thereto. The bank guarantee having been discharged upon payment being made, oppo¬site parties 1 and 3 pressurised the bank to realise the further amount Rs.2,14,04,445/-. Hence the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.91 of 2009 for declaring the demand made by opposite parties 1 and 3 to realise further amount vide its letters dated 24.10.2008, 14.1.2009 and 25.3.2009 to be illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and non est in the eye of law and restraining the Bank from making any payment to opposite parties 1 and 3. The peti¬tioner also filed an interim application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code for interim injunction. The peti¬tioner also filed an interim application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code for interim injunction. Due to urgency, the petitioner on 9.4.2009 moved the suit and the interim appli¬cation before the Court below. The Court below heard the suit as well as the interim application and posted the matter to 10.4.2009 for orders. On the said date, the Court below instead of admitting the suit directed the petitioner to pay the balance Court fees as per the valuation under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which was never raised at the time of hearing and issued notice to the opposite parties to show cause in the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code without admitting the plaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner only sought a declaration of the amount de¬manded by the Bank as illegal and the same was not a declaration of title with consequential relief for injunction. Therefore, the valuation put by the Court below was not correct. He submitted that the valuation put by the plaintiff for the relief of injunc¬tion could not be said to be arbitrary or under valued. 4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 and 3 vehemently objected to the contention raised by the petitioner and supported the impugned order. He submitted that the petition¬er sought a declaration that the demand of Rs.2,14,04,445/- made by opposite parties 1 & 3 is illegal and arbitrary. Since the plaintiff sought relief for declaration of non-payment of the said amount, the trial Court rightly called upon the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the Court fees. 5. Ordinarily in a declaratory suit where consequential relief is prayed for, Court fees are to be paid according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. In all such suits, the Court accepts the valuation made by the plain¬tiff. However, the said valuation must be reasonable and should have some nexus with the value of the subject matter. No doubt in the present suit the plaintiff sought relief for a declaration that the demand made by opposite party No.1 and 3 to the Bank to be discharged of the bank guarantee is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a declaration that it is not liable to pay such a huge amount. No doubt in the present suit the plaintiff sought relief for a declaration that the demand made by opposite party No.1 and 3 to the Bank to be discharged of the bank guarantee is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a declaration that it is not liable to pay such a huge amount. The plaintiff-petitioner also prayed for consequential relief of directing the Bank not to realise the said amount from the account of the petitioner on the demand of opposite party Nos.1 & 3. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the plaintiff sought a relief of declaration as well as consequential relief as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and that is the valuation of the suit. 6. Valuation of the suit is not only for the purpose of paying the Court fees but it also plays an important role for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Sec¬tion 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for institution of the suit in the Court of lowest grade, competent to try it. The object of providing such a lowest forum is that higher Courts may not be overburdened. The District Judge and all Judges subor¬dinate to him have jurisdiction to try all suits, yet a suit has to be instituted in the Court competent to try it. Valuation sug¬gested by the plaintiff prima facie determines the jurisdiction though there are certain suits which are not even capable of satisfactory valuation, for example, suit for restitution of conjugal rights and removal of a trustee, etc. In such a situa¬tion, the valuation suggested by the plaintiff is generally ac¬cepted. However, under valuation of the suit may alter the juris¬diction of the Court altogether and may cause loss to the revenue of the State. Therefore, Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates for rejection of the plaint in case the relief claimed is undervalued and once the Court calls upon the plain¬tiff to correct the same within the stipulated time and he fails to do so, Court can reject the same. 7. Section 12 of the Court Fees Act deals with the deci¬sion of question as to valuation and it provides that such an issue shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint is filed and such decision shall be final between the parties to the suit. 7. Section 12 of the Court Fees Act deals with the deci¬sion of question as to valuation and it provides that such an issue shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint is filed and such decision shall be final between the parties to the suit. However, in case the superior Court while exercising the appellate or revisional jurisdiction comes to the conclusion that the issue has wrongly been decided to the detriment of the reve¬nue, it can direct the party to make the deficiency good for the reasons that the object of the Act is not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality but to secure the revenue and the same is an arithmetical calculation and not with respect to classification i.e. category under which the suit falls. Deficiency of Court fees is an important issue and has to be decided giving combined effect to the provisions of Section 149 and Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and both the said provisions provide that if there is a deficiency of Court fee, the Court must give time to make the deficiency good and if during that period the amount of Court fee is paid, the plaint takes its effect from the date of its original presentation. Therefore, the Court below rightly directed the petitioner to pay the Court fees of Rs.2,14,04,445/-. 8. Since there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit No.91 of 2009, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.