Review petition against the judgment of the High Court in writ matters is an original petition and a fixed court-fee of Rs. 10/- is payable under Article 11 (k) of Schedule II of the Rajasthan Court-fees Act, 1952.

V. P. TYAGI, J.

( 1 ) IN all these review petitions, which are directed against the judgment of this court in a writ matter, objection has been raised by the office that these review petitions have been filed with a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 2/- each whereas according to the provisions of Article 5, Schedule I of the Rajas than Court-fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) application for review should bear one-half of the fee payable on the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the provisions of Article 11 (s) of schedule II of the Act would apply for determining the question of payment of court-fees in this matter.

( 3 ) NOTICE about this petition was given to the Government Advocate. Learned deputy Government Advocate urged that the the correct provision of the Court-fees Act would be Schedule I, Article 5 which provides that applications for review of judgment shall be presented in the Court on 1/2 of the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal comprising the relief sought in the application for review. He further contended that the word plaint used in this article must, on the basis of analogy, be taken to mean the writ petition. In the alternative, he urged that if this article is found not to apply to the circumstances of the present case, then Article 11 (k) of Schedule II would govern this case which provides a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 10/- on the original petitions not otherwise provided for when filed in the High Court. According to learned Deputy Government Advocate, a petition for review under Order 47, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code shall be taken to be an original petition and, therefore, the petitioner should present his review petition on a stamp fee of Rs. 10/ -.

( 4 ) RELYING on Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan, 1969 Raj LW 130 = (AIR 1969 Raj 41), learned Deputy Government Advocate contended that the review petition against the judgment passed by this Court on writ petition shall be governed by the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code and on the analogy of that provision the judgment passed by this Court in writ petition shall be taken to be a judgment passed in a suit. In Ram singhs case, the question that arose for the determination of this Court was whether Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code would govern the matters arising out of the writ jurisdiction and the learned judges, after having an elaborate discussion on this question, laid down that the principle contained in Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code can be suitably applied to writ proceeding which in the opinion of the learned Judges was undoubtedly a civil proceeding before this Court. On this analogy, learned Deputy Government advocate urged that the writ proceedings before this Court should be taken as the proceedings out of a suit and relying on Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun Mussoorie electric Tramway Co. Ltd. , AIR 1933 PC 63, it is urged that a suit can be instituted only by the presentation of a plaint. In such circumstances, the contention of Mr. Tewari is that the writ petition filed by the petitioner must for the purpose of court-fee be taken as a plaint and, therefore Article 5 of Schedule I shall be the proper provision of the Court-fees Act to govern the present case.

( 5 ) COURT-FEES Act is a fiscal statute and, therefore, it cannot be interpreted in the way in which Mr. Tewari wants this Court to interpret the word plaint appearing in article 5 of Schedule I. The expression "plaint" has not been defined anywhere in any statute. The Privy Council in AIR 1933 PC 63, has, however, laid down that a suit is instituted only by presenting a plaint and the suit is no doubt a civil proceeding and, therefore, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that an extended meaning may be given to the expression plaint in Article 5 of Schedule i.

( 6 ) IT is true that the principle contained in Order 9, Rule 9 Civil Procedure [code by analogy is made applicable to the matters arising out