JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajsamand, whereby, it decided issue No.5 relating to valuation of the suit against the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the suit has been improperly valued and permanent injunction is being sought for a specific amount of Rs. 13,39,207/-, regarding which, the Court had no jurisdiction, therefore, it ordered the petitioner to value the suit properly and file the plaint before the Court of District Judge, Rajsamand and directed the parties to remain present before the said Court and order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the District Judge, Rajsamand, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.04.2010 was dismissed by the appellate court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction inter alia seeking injunction against the respondents from interfering with its work in pursuance of work order dated 16.01.2007 and from deducting the amount of penalty in terms of letter dated 21.06.2008 from the said contract and not to award the said work to any other person, agency or institution. 4. The plaintiff made various averments in the plaint regarding the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the respondent State and made several allegations regarding the working of the contract and made averments relating to passing of the order dated 21.05.2008 imposing 10% penalty against it. 5. 4. The plaintiff made various averments in the plaint regarding the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the respondent State and made several allegations regarding the working of the contract and made averments relating to passing of the order dated 21.05.2008 imposing 10% penalty against it. 5. It would be appropriate to quote the prayer made by the plaintiff in the plaint:- " vr% izkFkZuk gS fd oknh dk okn i= fo:) izfroknhx.k Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj oknh ds i{k esa bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh QjekbZ tkos fd oknh }kjk dk;kZns'k fnukad 16-1-2007 ds rgr~ tks dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gS] mldk dk;Z lEikfnr djus esa fdlh izdkj fd :dkoV] ck/kk iSnk ugha djs vkSj mDr dk;Z ds lEcU/k esa dk;Z iw.kZ u gkd rc rd dk;Z dk dCtk vkf/kiR; izkIr ugha djsA oknh ds mDr dk;Z ds isVs izfroknh la[;k 4 }kjk i= fnukad 21-6-2008 ls mlds fo:) vkjksfir dh xbZ lafonk jkf'k dh nl izfr'kr crkSj 'kkfLr jkf'k dh dVkSfr izfroknh jktLFkku jkT; dh vksj ls mDr vuqca/k ds isVs ns; jkf'k esa ls ugha djs u gh ns; jkf'k esa mDr jkf'k lek;ksftr djsa] u gh mDr jkf'k dh olwyh dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh djsa rFkk vuqca/k ds isVs tks oknh dks dk;Z iznku fd;k x;k gS] og vU; fdlh O;fDr] laLFkku ;k ,tsUlh Lo;a ds ekQZr ij ugha djsa u djkos vkSj mDr 'ks"k dk;Z dh fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fufonk dk;Zns'k ugha fudkysA " 6. A written statement was filed by the respondent State and inter alia objection regarding valuation of the suit was raised and issues were framed. Issue No.5 related to the valuation of the suit as noticed herein before.The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 3 02.04.2010 after complete trial while deciding the suit after the parties had led their evidence first of all decided issue No.5 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is seeking relief that the notice dated 21.06.2008 Exhibit-8, whereby, the penalty of Rs. 13,39,207/- has been imposed on the plaintiff is null and void, which is a specific amount and on the said specific amount of Rs. 13,39,207/- the suit has been valued less and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the said suit. 7. 13,39,207/- has been imposed on the plaintiff is null and void, which is a specific amount and on the said specific amount of Rs. 13,39,207/- the suit has been valued less and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the said suit. 7. The first appellate court vide its order dated 19.05.2010 came to the conclusion that without seeking declaration about the notice being void and illegal, simple suit for injunction cannot be filed and, therefore, upheld the order passed on issue No.5. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have committed grave error of law in coming to the conclusion that the suit has incorrectly been valued by the plaintiff and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and it has stated that the order dated 21.06.2008, by which, penalty has been imposed against him should not be enforced and the amount of penalty should not be recovered from him and in fact the plaintiff had not made any prayer for the cancellation of the said demand and, as such, the suit was rightly valued. 10. The counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of M/s. Himalaya Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Electricity Board, reported at 1981 RLW 32 and Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Sambhar Salt Ltd., reported at 2009 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1123 for the preposition that as there is no prayer that the order be cancelled and the suit was for mere declaration under Section 24(e) of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, the plaintiff was entitled to put a valuation which according to him was the proper valuation. 11. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents supported the judgments passed by the courts below. It was inter alia submitted that the substance of the suit should be seen and mere prayer cannot form the basis for the purpose of judging the valuation of the suit. The plaintiff cannot value the suit at his whims. Clearly the substance of the prayer is that the order dated 21.06.2008 imposing a penalty of Rs. It was inter alia submitted that the substance of the suit should be seen and mere prayer cannot form the basis for the purpose of judging the valuation of the suit. The plaintiff cannot value the suit at his whims. Clearly the substance of the prayer is that the order dated 21.06.2008 imposing a penalty of Rs. 13,39,207/- be not enforced and, therefore, apparently the suit has been wrongly valued and appropriate Court fees has also been paid and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 13. A bare reading of the entire plaint in substance and the relief claimed in the suit would reveal that though the plaintiff has sought an injunction regarding the work order No.3867 dated 16.01.2007 to the effect that it should not be stopped from completing the said work order, but a specific relief has also been claimed that the penalty imposed vide letter dated 21.06.2008 should not be deducted from the said contract dated 16.01.2007, the same be not adjusted and very specifically no steps be taken for recovering the same. Further various 5 averments have been made in the plaint seeking to question the validity of the said letter dated 21.06.2008. It would be relevant to quote a part of para 11 of the plaint, which reads as under:- " --------------ewy vuqca/k esa of.kZr le;of/k esa oknh ls dk;Z lEiUu ugha djk;k gSA vuqca/k esa of.kZr 'kkfLr ds ,oa vU; izko/kku Lor% oso gks x;sA izfroknh jktLFkku jkT; ,oa mlds mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk rRi'pkr dksbZ 'kkfLr vkjksfir ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA dkuwuu Hkh ;gh fof/kd fl)kUr gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; lEikfnr vuqca/k esa ftllesa le;kof/k foLrkj dk izko/kku Hkh gS ,oa le; lafonk dk lkj gks] nksuksa DykWtst gks] ,sls vuqca/k esa le; lhek dHkh Hkh lafonk dk lkj ugha gks ldrh] blfy, Hkh izfroknh jktLFkku jkT; ,oa mlds v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa }kjk oknh ds fo:) fnukad 21-6-2008 ds i= ds tfj;s tks 'kfLr vkjksfir dh xbZ gS] og 'kwU; fu"izHkkoh ,oa vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA " 14. It is apparent that the petitioner has not only specifically sought setting aside of the letter imposing penalty dated 21.06.2008 as noticed in para 11 of the plaint, but has also sought a relief that no proceedings be initiated for recovery of the said amount in the relief clause. 15. It is apparent that the petitioner has not only specifically sought setting aside of the letter imposing penalty dated 21.06.2008 as noticed in para 11 of the plaint, but has also sought a relief that no proceedings be initiated for recovery of the said amount in the relief clause. 15. It is well settled that the Court in deciding the question of court fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for, mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. 16. The substance of the plaint is that the plaintiff is seeking relief relating to imposition of penalty of Rs. 13,39,207/- vide Exhibit-8 dated 21.06.2008 and, therefore, the suit has incorrectly been valued by the plaintiff. 17. The plaintiff has apparently not sought any declaration in the present suit and, therefore, provisions of Section 24(e) of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act are not applicable, which 6 provision specifically deals with a suit seeking declaration and for the same reason the judgment of Himalayan Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable. So far as the judgment in Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the said judgment is also clearly distinguishable as in the said suit injunction was sought for restraining the defendants-appellants not to give effect to the bill of recovery on the ground that the said amount was due to error of meter reader. While in the present case, the plaintiff has not merely sought injunction but has sought quashing of the order dated 21.06.2008, which clearly distinguishes the said judgment. 18. Though the finding recorded by the first appellate court that without seeking declaration about Exhibit-8 a suit for injunction could not be filed appears to be incorrect as at the stage of judging the matter on the issue of sufficiency of Court fee, it is of no concern to the Court to examine as to whether the suit would fail in absence of seeking declaration or not, however, the finding of both the courts below are otherwise sustainable for the foregoing reasons. 19. In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore dismissed. No costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******