L.N.CHHANGANI, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's revision against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur District dated 21 -5 -69, deciding two issues Nos. 6 and 9. The issues read as follows - 6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient? 9. Whether in the absence of a prayer for consequential relief the present suit, which is for declaration, is maintainable?
(2.) ON issue No. 6, the trial Judge has expressed an opinion that the plaintiffs suit falls under Section 24(d) of the Court Fees Act. He, however, has not yet determined the amount of court fee payable as the parties have put forward varying versiens about the valuation of the property and a correct valuation can only be ascertained after evidence. The plaintiff's suit being one for a declaration and there being no prayer for consequential relief Section 24(d) prima facie would govern the present case. At any rate, it is open to the petitioner to challenge this order against the order finally determining the court fee payable by him. It will be unnecessary to record any' firm finding on this point. As regards issue No. 9, the trial court has held that the plaintiffs being in a position to seek consequential relief, has omitted to do so and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. No exception can be taken to this finding also. The plaintiff being not in a position to pay court fee wants to amend the suit by amending the relief for court fee purposes of also to make his suit maintainable. The plaintiff may submit an application for amendment of the plaint in the trial court which shall be considered on merits.
(3.) THE present revision is without merits and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.;