JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : The petitioner is the defendant No.2 in C.S. No.98 of 2003 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Cuttack. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the Trial Court vide Annexure-2 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2.Facts reveal that the opposite party No.1 as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Cuttack claiming the following reliefs : 1. Let a decree be passed declaring that the purported cancellation of the shop room 127 at lower ground floor of Netaji Subhas Bose Shopping Arcade made in favour of the plaintiff, as communicated by the defendants in their letter dt. 24.4.2003 and 5.5.2003 is illegal and the same has not sanctioned in law and the plaintiff is entitled to be assigned shop No.127. 2. Let a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant or any of its Officer/authorized representatives restraining them from allotting the shop room in question being shop room No.127 in lower ground floor of Block-A, having a super built up area of 332 sft in favour of any other prospective purchaser/allotted. 3. Let a decree for mandatory injunction be passed against the defendants/any of its officer/representatives directing them to receive the balance amount from the plaintiff either in one installment or in phased manner, as may be decided by this Hon’ble Court. 3.It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendants were constructing a market complex in the land of the old jail complex, Darghabazar, Cuttack, the details of which has been given in the schedule of land attached to the plaint. The plaintiff was allotted with Shop Room No.127 in Block-A in the ground floor of the complex having a super-built up area of 320 Sq.ft., the cost of which was Rs.4,66,900/-, but the defendants granted him discount to the tune of Rs.9338/- and thus, the total consideration amount was fixed at Rs.4,57,562/-. The plaintiff made payment of Rs.18,470/- on 25.4.2002, Rs.54,937/- on 29.5.2002, Rs.54,907/- on 9.9.2002 and Rs.54,740/- on 10.10.2002 and thus, in sum total, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.1,83,074/- to the defendants. The plaintiff made payment of Rs.18,470/- on 25.4.2002, Rs.54,937/- on 29.5.2002, Rs.54,907/- on 9.9.2002 and Rs.54,740/- on 10.10.2002 and thus, in sum total, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.1,83,074/- to the defendants. Since the plaintiff could not pay certain installments, the defendants by their letters dated 24.4.2003 and 5.5.2003 cancelled the order of allotment of Shop Room No.127 in favour of the plaintiff, which are sought to be declared in the suit as illegal and without sanction of law. The petitioner-defendant No.2 on receipt of the summons appeared in the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff having filed the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction, the suit is governed under Section 7 (iv(c) of the Courts Fees Act. The plaintiff in paragraph-10 of the plaint having stated that valuation of the shop room is Rs. 4,57,562/- and having stated about his payment of Rs.1,83,074/- to the defendants could not have valued the suit arbitrarily at Rs.1500/- only. The suit, therefore, having been grossly undervalued, the plaintiff should be directed to correct the valuation of the suit to Rs.4,57,562/- within a fixed period failing which the plaint should be rejected. 4.The trial Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the suit is relating to the order of cancellation of allotment of the suit shop room. Admittedly, till date, no title over the suit property has passed to the plaintiff through any instrument nor any such instrument is under challenge. The plaintiff has not acquired any title over the suit premises in order to establish his possession or ownership and the controversial issue between the parties is a dispute relating to allotment of the suit shop room. Therefore, the plaintiff is not to be governed as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act to pay advolrem Court fees, as it is a simple suit for declaration. Therefore, the plaintiff is not to be governed as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act to pay advolrem Court fees, as it is a simple suit for declaration. Challenging the cancellation order as illegal with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff is the best person to value his own suit and there may not by any nexus with the cost of the suit premises as raised by the defendant No.2 and therefore, he is not obliged to pay advolrem Court fee as per the provision of Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Thus, doing, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 5.Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties in extenso, I find that Trial Court is not correct in holding that the relief sought for in the plaint has no nexus with the valuation of the shop room No.127 as I find that in prayer (a) of the plaint, the plaintiff while seeking a declaration declaring the letters dated 24.4.2003 and 5.5.2003 as illegal and without sanction of law has also prayed that it should be declared that he is entitled to be assigned shop No.127. In the case of S. Rm.Ar.S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S.Rm. Ar.R.m. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 , the Supreme Court held that considering the scheme in the Court Fees Act for computation of fees payable in suits covered by different Sub-sections of Section 7, it would be clear that in respect of suits failing under Sub-section (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purpose of Court fees and that the theoretical basis of this provisions appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness. It is well settled in law that though the plaintiffs are free to put their own valuation on the relief claimed by them, yet it si the consensus of law that the valuation cannot be arbitrary so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of any particular Court but that the valuation has to be reasonable and based upon some nexus or criteria though it need not necessarily be the market value. It is also well settled that for determination of valuation of the suit and the Court fee payable by the plaintiff is to be ascertained by taking into consideration the real relief necessary to be claimed and for that purpose, the substance of the pleadings is to be looked into to lift the veil and the mere form in which it is couched is not to be taken as a determinative factor. In the case of Rama @ Rama Chandra Gauda and others v. State of Orissa and others, 63 (1987) CLT 621, this Court while dealing with a suit seeking a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from going upon the land for the purpose of diverting the water by construction of any obstruction and for a direction to the opposite parties to remove any construction that might have been made, held that it is well established that in the matters of Court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction, one must look to the real substance of the suit and not to the mere form in which it is couched. It was further held in the said case that where the plaintiff must seek a declaration that is to say where there is a legal necessity of seeking a declaration before he could get an injunction to protect it, the suit would come under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act even though there is no specific prayer for a declaration and the declaration shall be deemed to be embedded by way of averments in the body of the plaint. 6.However, while examining the averments made in the plaint by the opposite parties in the present case, it is found that the plaintiff, in fact, has sought for allotment of shop room No.127, the valuation of which has been specifically mentioned das Rs.4,57,562/- upon declaring two letters mentioned above, which were issued by the defendants, as illegal and without sanction of law. Upon consideration of the nature of the relief claimed in the suit by the opposite parties, it would be clear that unless the first relief prayed for is granted by declaring the two letters as illegal and further declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to be assigned with shop room No.127, the other two reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. Upon consideration of the nature of the relief claimed in the suit by the opposite parties, it would be clear that unless the first relief prayed for is granted by declaring the two letters as illegal and further declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to be assigned with shop room No.127, the other two reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. In such situation, I am of the view that it is not Section 7 (iv)(c) but Section 7 (ivA) as inserted by the Orissa Amendment under the Orissa Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 1939 would be applicable to the present suit. The said Section 7 (iv-A) as inserted by the Orissa Amendment to the Court Fees Act is as follows :- “Section 7(iv-A) - In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having money-value, or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be- If the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document executed; If a part of the decree or other documents sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property. Explanation- In any case where a suit for the cancellation of a whole decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document securing money or other property having such value has to be instituted, but the substantial relief claimed is only in respect of a part of the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed for the other document was executed, the value of the subject-matter of the suit shall be deemed to be such part of the amount or value of the property in respect of which the relief is sought.” 7.I, therefore, find that the valuation of the suit should have been made as per the valuation of the shop room No.127, which is Rs.4,57,562/-, under Section 7(iv-A) as inserted by the Orissa Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 1939. The above conclusion of mine is supported by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Madhusudan Mohapatra v. Lingaraj Mohapatra and others, 1990 (I) OLR 34. The above conclusion of mine is supported by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Madhusudan Mohapatra v. Lingaraj Mohapatra and others, 1990 (I) OLR 34. I also find support for the above conclusion from the decision in the case of Smt. Narbada v. Smt. Aashi, AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162, where the Rajasthan High Court dealing with a case under Sub-section (I) of Section 38 of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, which is in pari materia with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act as inserted by the Orissa Amendment Act, quoted above, for cancellation of a document, came to the conclusion that Court fee has to be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit and such value has to be determined when the whole of the document is sought to be cancelled, as per the value of the property for which the document was executed. No doubt, in the case of Shrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 , the Supreme Court made a distinction between a prayer for cancellation of a deed and a prayer for annulment of a deed by seeking a declaration that the deed is invalid or non est or illegal or that, is not binding on him and held that the executant of a deed wanted to be annulled, has to seek cancellation of the deed but if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or non est or illegal and in the case executant seeking cancellation of a deed has to pay advolrem Court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed, but non-executant seeking annulment by a declaration that the deed is invalid or illegal and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed Court fee. But the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. But the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Considering the pleadings in the plaint, as it is clear that the plaintiff in order to obtain possession over shop room No.127, which was allotted initially in his favour and has been cancelled by the letters sought to be declared as illegal, has filed the suit by valuing the relief sought for at Rs.1500/- though the said relief has a direct nexus with the valuation of the Shop Room No.127. 8.In the result, therefore, in view of the discussion made above, I find that the plaintiff has to value his suit for an amount which the valuation of the shop room No.127 i.e. Rs.4,57,562/- and pay advolrem Court fee, as the suit is one for declaration with consequential relief. As I find that on valuing the suit at Rs.4,57,562/-, the suit becomes one which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Cuttack, who passed the impugned order, the said Court shall return the plaint to the plaintiff by stipulating a time for filing the same before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack by mentioning the valuation of the suit as Rs.4,57,562/- and making Court fee thereon. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.