Permanent injunction remains an injunction suit even if title is incidentally examined; amendment and revaluation were set aside.

A plaint for permanent injunction does not become a suit for declaration of title merely because title may incidentally be examined while deciding the injunction claim. The High Court held that the decisive relief remained injunction, so the plaint did not require amendment or revaluation under the proviso to Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The preliminary objection to revision under Section 115 CPC also failed, because the jurisdictional question arose from the proposed amendment and valuation direction itself. The order directing amendment and revaluation was set aside, and the suit was ordered to proceed as originally filed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition was incompetent under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether a suit framed as one for permanent injunction was atively one for declaration of title requiring amendment of the plaint and valuation under the proviso to Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition was incompetent under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The objection was rejected because the question of jurisdiction would itself arise from the proposed amendment and the direction to value the suit as one for declaration. The proceeding was therefore not barred at the threshold on the ground suggested.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to the revision petition failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit framed as one for permanent injunction was atively one for declaration of title requiring amendment of the plaint and valuation under the proviso to Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Analysis: The plaint alleged a right to the property only as part of the cause of action for injunction. That did not convert the suit into one for a declaration of title. The decisive relief remained permanent injunction, and the fact that title might incidentally fall for consideration did not justify treating the suit as one for declaration and injunction or compelling an amendment of the plaint. The authorities relied on by the lower Court were distinguished on the facts.

Conclusion: The suit was properly valued as one for permanent injunction and no amendment of the plaint was necessary.

Final Conclusion: The order directing amendment and revaluation was set aside, and the suit was directed to proceed on the plaint as originally filed with costs awarded to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint for permanent injunction does not become a suit for declaration of title merely because title may incidentally be examined in deciding the injunction claim.

---