ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior whereby an application filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order 7 rule 11 of CPC has been entertained upholding the objection that ad valorem court-fees is payable under the provision of section 7(iv)(c) of the court-fees Act instead of fixed court-fees as has been paid by the plaintiff/petitioner. It is petitioner's submission that the test for determining whether the ad valorem court-fees was payable or fixed court-fees is payable is that whether the relief of injunction is independent from the relief of declaration or it is derived from the relief of declaration as has been sought by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Varud Ahmed v. Nihal Ahmed, as reported in 1996 (1) MPWN 235, wherein the facts of the case were that plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that they were in possession of the suit property. They also sought permanent injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant No.1 from selling property to defendant No.2 or any other person or to interfere in the possession of the suit property. Under such facts and circumstances, learned Court was pleased to hold that the two reliefs as were sought by the plaintiff were independent of each other and therefore ad valorem court-fees was not payable but a fixed court-fees was payable under the provisions of section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act. Reliance has been placed in this decision on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rainder Prasad and others, as reported in AIR 1973 SC 2384 . 2. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the relief sought by him will show that the suit will not fall within the provision of section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act but will be governed by the provisions of section 7(iv)(d) and fixed court-fees will be payable. 3. 2. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the relief sought by him will show that the suit will not fall within the provision of section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act but will be governed by the provisions of section 7(iv)(d) and fixed court-fees will be payable. 3. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions as are contained in section 7(iv)(c) and 7(iv)(d) which reads as under: “For a declaratory decree and consequential relief :- (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, For an injunction :- (d) to obtain an injunction”. 4. Now in this regard, relief as has been sought by the plaintiff in his plaint is to be examined which is as under: ^^v- ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tk, fd oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe losZ Øekad 493@2] feu- 2 dk Hkkx jdck 0-804 gsDVj fLFkr xzke mVhyk] rglhy o ftyk Xokfy;j dk oknh vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSA c- ;g fd] oknh ds fgr esa izfroknh Ø- 5 ds fo#) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ksèkkKk tkjh dh tk, fd izfroknh Ø- 5] oknh dks oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe ls tcju csn[ky u djs] u fdlh vU; ls djk, rFkk oknh dks 'kkafriwoZd mldk mi;ksx o miHkksx djus nsosaA^^ 5. Thus, it is to be seen and appreciated that the declaration which has been sought by the plaintiff is to the effect that he is in possession of the suit property and thereafter a relief of permanent injunction has been sought to restrain defendant No.5 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff from the suit property either on his own or through somebody else. In this case, no declaration has been sought about the ownership of the suit property as was the fact in the case of Varud Ahemed (supra). Thus, the fine distinction lies in the fact that in the case of Varud Ahemed, the contention of the plaintiff was that he is a owner of the suit property and by virtue of his ownership he is in possession of the suit property therefore, permanent injunction was sought that the defendant be restrained from selling the suit property in favour of a third party. In the present case, since there is no declaration about the ownership of the suit property and declaration has been sought in relation to possession therefore, in absence of any declaration about ownership, the relief of permanent injunction becomes consequential to declaration in regard to possession as has been sought by the petitioner therefore, in the opinion of this Court, provision of section 7(iv)(c) will be applicable and not the provision of section 7(iv)(d) as has been upheld by the learned trial Court Judge. On the basis of this distinction, it is also appropriate to mention that the ratio of the case of Varud Ahemed is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court calling for any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Thus, this petition fails and is dismissed.