ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioner (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 155 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati for declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioner prayed relief of declaration that advertisement dated 22.8.2010 published by the Corporation that it has taken over possession of suit plots (without actually taking over possession) is arbitrary and illegal. In the alternative, a declaratory relief is sought that if there is presumptive possession with respondent Corporation, the same may be declared illegal and it be restored to the petitioner. Permanent injunction is sought restraining respondent (defendant) Corporation from dealing with suit plots in colourable exercise of power vested in it by law. 3. Respondent Corporation filed application (exhibit 17) under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for direction to the petitioner pay deficit court fee and in the alternative, for rejection of plaint. It was stated in paragraph 2 of the application that as per Section 6 (iv) (d) of the Bombay Court Fee Act, petitioner is liable to pay 1/4th ad valorem fee and that value of suit plots is more than Rs. 30 lacs and petitioner is liable to pay court fee accordingly in terms of the above provision. Petitioner opposed the said application contending that respondent Corporation misread the plaint. 4. Learned trial Judge partly allowed the application and directed petitioner to value suit correctly as per Section 6 (iv) (d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and pay requisite court fee within a period of one month from the date of order. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused plaint, application, reply thereto and impugned order passed by the trial Court. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, Suit Valuation Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon ruling in Inderlal Panwarmal v. Khialdas and ors reported in 1969 DGLS (AHS) 1017 to contend that it was not open to the trial Court to revise the valuation which the petitioner has put in its plaint and the case clearly falls within Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Act. I have gone through the said ruling. I have gone through the said ruling. In the case before the Gujarath High Court, it was found that suit before it was not in substance a suit to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetory loss. The agreement which was obtained from plaintiff was out of coercion and no consideration had passed from the defendant. 7. Relevant paragraph where petitioner/plaintiff has valued the suit for jurisdiction of the Court and for payment of court fee, reads as under : “18. The suit of the plaintiff is that for declaration and injunction. For the prayer of declaration the suit is valued at Rs. 1,000/and for the prayer of injunction the same is valued at Rs. 1,000/. The Court fee of Rs. 200/is thus affixed herewith.” 8. Computation of fees payable in certain suits is provided under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. It has been provided under Section 6 (ha) of the Act that in suits for declaration that any sale, or contract for sale or termination of contract for sale, of any movable or immovable property is void one half of ad valorem fee leviable on the value of the property is required to be paid. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 it is provided that where in suits other than those referred to in paragraphs (v), (vi) and (x) and clause (d) of paragraph (xi) in Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 court fees are payable ad valorem under the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 the value as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. Rule 2 of the Civil Court Manual (Rules Made by the High Court under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869) and the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides as under : “2. In suits for the possession of land, houses, and gardens mentioned in paragraph (v) in Section 6 of the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 (Bom. Rule 2 of the Civil Court Manual (Rules Made by the High Court under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869) and the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides as under : “2. In suits for the possession of land, houses, and gardens mentioned in paragraph (v) in Section 6 of the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as “the Court Fees Act”), for the purposes of jurisdiction, the value of the property shall be determined as follows, namely : (a) Where the subject-matter is a house or garden, according to the market value of the house or garden, as the case may be; (b) Where the subject-matter is a house or garden according to the market value of the assessment payable in respect of the land.” Article 7 of Schedule I contained in the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, provides for ad valorem fee on any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss including cases wherein application or petition is either treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as aforesaid. 9. In Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha & anr reported in (1987) 4 SCC 69 , the Supreme Court has held as under : “It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the valuation made by the plaintiff by an inquiry and may direct proper valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction of the court and payment of court fees and can revise the same. The plaintiff has valued the leasehold interest on the basis of the rent. The plaintiff has valued the leasehold interest on the basis of the rent. Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the courts below, is reasonable and the same is not demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of the reliefs....” 10. Plaint in paragraph 18 reproduced supra is vague and omnibus. Without observing anything on merit, therefore, it would be expedient to quash and set aside impugned order with direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to amend paragraph 18 of the plaint in order to incorporate detailed pleading for the payment of court fees as to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. In view of the leave so granted, petitioner shall carry out amendment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. Trial Court shall then decide application (exhibit 17) afresh after hearing both the sides bearing in mind observations made in this order. 11. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of directions in paragraph 10 above with no order as to costs.