B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed .against the order dated 11-7-2002 pased by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") on the ground that the court fee ought to have been paid by the plaintiff/ non-petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") and the court below has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that it could have been valued under Section 27 of the Act and the court fee paid thereon was sufficient for the reason that it was a suit for declaration that the lease deed executed by the defendant/non-petitioner Shri Narendra Singh Maharaj in favour of defendant petitioner was void and there was a further prayer for possession of the suit property.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been leased out the suit property by non petitioner No.4 for a particular period and non petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed a suit seeking declaration that the lease deed executed by non petitioner No.4 in favour of defendant-petitioner be held to be void being without any authorisation and for possession of the suit premises. In the said suit, defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code to reject the plaint as the subject matter of the suit had not been properly valued as it could have ben valued under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act and not under Section 27 of the Act as has been done by the plaintiffs-non petitioners. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision petition.
(3.) The issue involved herein is no more resjudicata. In Bhikamdas Balaram & Ors. v. Motilal Gambhirmal, the Bombay High Court held that an erroneous decision to the effect that a suit fell under a particular category for the purpose of court fee, was open to revision for the reason that the jurisdiction of the court might be affected by the decision.;