1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2009 IN SUIT STAMP NO. 1112 OF 2009 Smt. Krishna w/o. Jagdish Goenka ... Applicant/ Orig. Plaintiff vs. Mr. Paresh B. Purohit & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.M.Sarogi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. B.G.Moorthy, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP, for respondent No.4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of certain property and had entered into an agreement for sale of the same in favour of the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- out of which amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid. The plaintiff claims to have terminated the said contract by issuing two letters dated 25.1.2009 and 22.2.2009 and, according to him, in view of the termination, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no right or interest in the said property and they 2 have no right to disturb the plaintiff’s possession over the same. The plaintiff filed Suit Stamp No.1112/2009 seeking declaration to the above effect with perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from acting upon the agreement dated 23.4.2008. The trial court passed an order on 30.3.2009 holding that the suit has to be valued at Rs.6,50,000/- for the purpose of Court fees and Court fees has to be paid accordingly. He directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the deficit Court fees within 15 days. That order is challenged in the present Revision Application. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant concedes that the plaintiff did not pay the deficit Court fees as per the said order and consequently the suit came to be dismissed. 4. On perusal of the facts and the reliefs sought, it is clear that the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the termination of the contract for sale of the property for Rs.6,50,000/- is valid and thereby he wants to avoid the specific performance of that contract at the behest of the defendants. He also sought declaration that on the basis of the said agreement, the defendants have no right to disturb his possession. Admittedly, value of the property in dispute was fixed at Rs.6,50,000/- by the terms of the contract between the parties. If the defendants 3 would come to the Court seeking specific performance of the contract, the suit would be valued at Rs.6,50,000/-. Similarly, when the plaintiff wants to avoid the contract, the valuation has to be on the basis of the value of the property in dispute. Therefore, the case would squarely fall under Section 6(iv)(d) and in a suit for some declaration, he would be required to pay 1/4th of the ad valorem fee as per Article 1 and if some consequential relief is also sought, he would be required to pay one-half of the ad valorem fee and if he seeks relief of possession, he would be required to pay full ad valorem fee. In the present case, the plaintiff claims to be in possession and seeks relief of only declaration and consequential relief of injunctin. Therefore, he would be required to pay one-half of the advalorem fee and the suit will have to be valued at Rs.6,50,000/- being the consideration amount of the contract which is sought to be avoided. In view of this legal position, I find no fault with the impugned order and, therefore, the Revision Application is liable to be rejected.At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks time to pay the Court fees. 5. Therefore, the Revision Application stands dismissed. However, the plaintiff/applicant is allowed to amend the valuation of the suit and to pay the requisite Court fee within four weeks from this day and on payment of the same, the suit shall be registered subject to other office objections, if any. 4 6. The applicant shall be at liberty to move an application before the trial Court for amendment in the plaint and if it is so moved, it shall be decided on its own merits. 7. As the Revision Application itself is finally disposed of, C.A. Nos. 162 of 2009 and 207 of 2009 do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)