PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 (Annex.4) passed by Civil Judge, City North Udaipur in Civil Suit No.197/2015 to the extent of allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) read with Section 7, 10, 11 and 26(a) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Valuation Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently the application in this regard preferred by the respondent no.1 may kindly be rejected with costs. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." (iii) writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing validity and correctness of order dated 16.3.2018 (Annex.4) passed by Civil Judge City North, Udaipur whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC read with Section 7, 10, 11 and 26(a) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Valuation Act, 1961 preferred by the respondent no.1/defendant has been accepted and a direction has been issued to the plaintiff to determine appropriate valuation of suit and compute and pay the court-fees within fifteen days from the date of passing of order otherwise the suit shall stand rejected.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that his prayer of the plaint does amount to averment pertaining to denial of his title to the property in-question. Counsel for the petitioner further averred that Section 27(c) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation act, 1961 will apply in his present case. Counsel for the petitioner to strengthen his argument cited precedent law of this Court in the matter of Jugal Kishore v. Bankat Lal and Ors., reported in DNJ (Raj.) 1996 page 739 , relevant portion whereof reads as follows : "13. I have considered the arguments. Wherever a Court is called upon to examine the question of adequacy of Court fees, it must be considered with reference to the allegations as laid in the plaint and with reference to the case as set-up by the defendants. For this, the substance and nature of the claim of the plaintiff with reference to the averments made therein must be ascertained and then the appropriate provisions of the Act must be applied for ascertaining whether the proper Court fees has been paid or not. I have examined the plaints in both the cases. While narrating the facts of the cases, I have quoted the relief paras of the plaints. In 611/95 also the facts are different. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiffs and other members of a joint family owned certain property. The disputed property has been denoted by letters A, B, C and D. The plaintiff claimed physical possession over this piece of land came to the share of Shri Ganpat Lal and Smt. Ayodhya Devi W/o. Shri Ganpat Lal, sold the above land to the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also constructed a boundary over the above plot with the permission of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1961. He, therefore, alleged that the defendant was making efforts to grab the above land and with this object in view placed certain stones and also damaged the main door. The plaintiff, therefore, sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and also for mandatory injunction asking the defendant to remove the stones and repair the damage done to the main door. From the above averments it is clear that the plaintiff only claimed relief of permanent as well as mandatory injunction claiming his own possession. A scrutiny of the whole plaint would also lead to the same conclusion. Hence, the learned appellate Court has correctly held that the plaintiff has paid Court fees in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the order of the learned trial court was illegal and passed with material irregularity. I, therefore, find no force in the revision petitions and they are hereby dismissed." Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Muktar Steels (P) Ltd. Co. v. Hind Ro-Rolling Industries Ltd., reported in (2005) 11 SCC 399 , relevant portion whereof reads as follows : "3. We have gone through the contents of the order of the learned Single Judge and we have also seen the memo of revision petition. The prayer made by the petitioner in the revision petition against demand of ad valorem court fee on the abovementioned amount, has clearly been allowed. It is also clear from the cents of the order of the learned Single Judge (quoted above) that he has construed the pleadings in the plaint to mean that there is a mention of the aforesaid amount as having been paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant and the said amount having been returned, the plaintiff is entitled to remain in undisturbed possession of the leased property. After reading the entire order and the prayer made in the memo of revision petition, it is clear to us that the decision of the learned Single Judge is that no ad valorem court fee is payable on the aforesaid amount as no relief of recovery of the said amount has been claimed. Clearly no monetary decree has been sought by the plaintiff in the suit. In such circumstances, in the underlined portion of the order of the learned Single Judge (quoted above), there seems to be clearly omission of the word "not" in the two sentences. This mistake or omission in the order of the learned single Judge made it necessary for the appellant to approach for necessary correction by the application under Section 151 CPC to the Court. Review petition could have been filed for the purpose but the appellant filed the application under Section 151 CPC.;