Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to allow the writ petition and by suitable writ, direction or order the order impugned annexure 10, order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the court below the District Judge Metropolitan Jodhpur City in C.M. 73A / 1999 titled Para v. Panna Lal and ors. May kindly be set aside. Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deem it proper and found favourable to the petitioner, may kindly be passed."
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the issue of court fee on three proposition. The first proposition is that the present suit was filed in 1999 and the valuation for the purpose of court fee is being imposed by year 2006. The second proposition of counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso of Rule 11 (j) of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 shall not be applicable on 11 (j)(i), and therefore, the present litigation cannot be treated as a separate suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the third issue that had it been a revenue suit because most of the property involved was the agricultural property then the court fee would have been absolutely minimized.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has answered all the three points while stating that 11(j)(i) shall have to be read with the proviso at the end of 11(j) and therefore, the proviso shall be equally applicable in the present facts. Learned counsel for the respondent however does not wish to join the issue on the third issue as it is imaginary issue and no such agricultural suit has been filed.;