- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 03.07.2008 whereby the trial Court observed that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the relief No. 3, 4 and 5, therefore, the plaintiff should properly put the value for the relief No. 3, 4 and 5 and, thereafter, pay the proper Court fees stamp for the said reliefs. It will be worthwhile to mention here that respondent No. 2 defendant raised an objection about the improper suit valuation then the trial Court vide order dt. 14.08.2007 rejected the respondent No. 2's objection. The respondent No. 2 preferred SBCWP No. 6298/2007 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dt. 05.11.2007 after observing that the same objection was raised by the petitioner -defendant (respondent No. 2 in this petition) before the trial Court on earlier occasion with respect to the suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. That application though was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and that was rejected by the trial Court vide order dt. 29.05.2007. This Court observed that petitioner cannot be permitted to take pleas about the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of valuation of the suit in peace meal and, therefore, the writ petition No. 6298/2007 was dismissed by this Court. Being aggrieved against the said order dt. 05.11.2007, the respondent No. 2 preferred DBSAW No. 1035/2007. The said special appeal was allowed with the following observations: We have considered the submissions, and find, that in view of the language of Section 26(a), coupled with the fact that the objection is likely to have the effect of effecting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court is required to decide the application (Annex.3) filed by the appellant before the learned trial Court, on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that any observations made in this order need not be taken by the learned trial Court to be expression of any opinion on the part of this Court, about existence or otherwise of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, or about the valuation of the Court fees, or about the extent of Court fees like to be paid. This Court directed the trial Court to decide the application on merits in accordance with law.
(3.) IN view of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, the trial Court decided the respondent No. 2's application filed under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Stamp Valuation Act, 1961. The trial Court after going through the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit held that so far as relief Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are relief for grant of injunction only and the suit has properly been valued for these reliefs. So far as reliefs Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, they have not been valued in accordance with the Act of 1961. Instead of specifically directing the plaintiffs to properly value the suit by amending the plaint so as to put valuation for the reliefs Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the Court straightway directed the plaintiff to pay stamp duty also for the reliefs Nos. 3, 4 and 5.;