SHAKTI SUT UDHYOG Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-original plaintiffs have filed the present petition challenging the order dt.27/01/2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.2), Ajmer, Camp Beawar, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Suit No.89/2003 (10/1998).

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed suit against the respondents-defendants seeking cancellation of the sale of the property made by the defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No.7 & 8 on 01/03/1993 and for seeking possession of the said property. In the said suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs have valued the suit to the extent of Rs.13,12,000/-, giving bifurcation to the effect that the valuation of the suit for cancellation of sale was Rs.3,12,000/- and valuation of suit for possession was Rs.10 lacs. The petitioners-plaintiffs had also filed an application under Order XXXIII of CPC seeking permission of the Court to sue them as indigent person. The present respondent No.9 also filed an application under Order XXXIII Rule 5 & 6 for rejecting the suit on non-payment of the requisite court fees. The petitioners-plaintiffs thereupon submitted an application under Section 149 read with 151 CPC praying interalia, that the plaintiffs be permitted to proceed further with the suit on payment of court fees to the extent of Rs.15,725/-, calculated on the basis of sale price at Rs.3,12,000/- + 800/-. The trial court dismissed the said application of the petitioners-plaintiffs by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The Mr.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has drawn attention of the Court to the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), more particularly, to Section 24 and 38 of the said Act and submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs were liable to pay the court fees on the market value of the suit property, when the prayer was made for declaration and for possession, as per Section 24, and also when the prayer was made for cancellation of the document as per Section 38 of the said Act. He also submitted that it was mistake on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs to make valuation of their suit for two prayers separately namely for declaration and for possession. He also submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs would pay the deficit court fees, if the trial court at the time of final hearing of the suit comes to the conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs are liable to be pay the court fees at the higher market value.