In a suit to set aside a summary decision of a Revenue Court, the court fee payable is 1/4th of the value of the subject matter of the suit under Section 39(2) of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.

P.D. Kudal, J.-This is a revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge No 2, Jodhpur dated March 15, 1973.

2. Theplaintiff-applicant Kaloo Singh filed a suit against the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) and the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geological Department, Jodhpur on 12-4-1971 before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. The plaintiff prayed that the defendant is not entitled to recover the balance of the “theka” amount either under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, or under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952. The plaintiff also prayed for issue of injunction restraining the defendants from effecting the recovery of the balance of the “theka” amount. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the learned District Judge.

3. Issue No. 6 reads as follows:

“Whether the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?”

4. The case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who decided issue No. 6 on March 15, 1973. The learned Additional District Judge held that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient, and he was directed to make good the deficiency in the Court-fee within a month.

5. Theplaintiff-applicant feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge has filed the present revision petition.

6. On behalf of the plaintiff-applicant, it was contended that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was sufficient in View of the provisions of Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. It was also contended that when the representations filed on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant were rejected by the Assistant Mining Engineer such rejection amounted to a summary decision as envisaged in Section 39 (2) of the said Act. It was also contended that the word “decision” used in Section 39 (2) of the said Act deserves to be interpreted in the context in which it has been used. It was also contended that any decision by a revenue authority either under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or under the Rajasthan Public Damands Recovery Act pertaining to recovery of any amount as arrears of land revenue is subject to the decision of a civil suit, and as such, such a decision by the revenue authority shall only be a summary decision. It was also contended that even the decision to issue a notice for recovery of a certain amount as arrears of land revenue shall constitute a summary decision.

7. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) did not constitute a Court and as such, the present civil suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant is totally misconceived. It was also contended that the order of the Assistant Mining Engineer for recovery of the arrears as land revenue does not amount to a summary decision and the suit, therefore, is per se not maintainable. It was further argued that at any rate the plaintiff should pay ad valorem Court-fee on the amount claimed by him. it was further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is a suit for declaration and injunction, and is not for setting aside a summary decision as envisaged in Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. It was also contended that under the provisions of Section 257B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the entire money has first to be deposited with the Department concerned, and thereafter a suit may be filed for setting aside the summary decision of the recovery and for refund of the amount, so deposited. It was also contended on behalf of the State that there is no decision much less a summary decision and that the plaintiff-applicant has not filed any copy of such summary decision. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the State that the suit filed by the plaintiff is totally misconceived, and that it is not covered under the provisions of Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valu