PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that impugned order has been passed for calculation of the Court fee in accordance with Section 24 (b) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 at the current DLC rate of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Act of 1961 for the purpose of determination of the market value for particularly suits falling under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 24 of the Act of 1961 prescribe for a proper modus-operandi under Section 7 sub-section 2 Clause (a) and (b) of the Act of 1961.
(2.) In support of above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Amrit Lal and Ors. v. Heera Ram and Anr. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 39/2016), decided on 18.05.2016 . The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:- "Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale deed in question and, therefore, relief of declaration sought by them is justified in the circumstances of the case. Once the suit is for declaration, provisions of section 24 of the Court Fees Act would come in picture, wherein, the said provision requires that in a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the 'market value' of the property, subject to a minimum fee of Rs. 20/-. The determination of the market value has to be done in terms of section 7 of the Court Fees Act which provides that market value of the land in a suit falling under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 24 shall be deemed to be where rent in respect of such land has been settled, twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned therefor during the last settlement and based on the said provision the plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 4568.50 p. and has paid the court fee on the same. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have valued the suit incorrectly and that the court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, as alleged by the petitioners."
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the learned court below has rightly adjudicated the dispute under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 whereby the Court had discretion to decide the court fees before hearing of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent has also averred that the petitioner has concealed the relevant order regarding the same dispute which is Annexure R-1/2 dated 06.07.2017.;