1. This petition is directed against order dated 6.5.2015 passed by the District Judge, Pali, dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2001, returning the plaint for institution in the court in which the suit should have been instituted.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the respondents No. 3 to 5 are not the contesting respondents and therefore, service upon them may be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly.

3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.

4. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali in the year 1998, in respect of a house situated at Pali. The suit was being contested by the defendant No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) by filing a written statement thereto. The property subject matter of the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 80,000/- and accordingly, the court fee of Rs. 2065/- was paid on one-half of the value of the property as per provisions of Section 24(b) of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961.

5. The defendants in the written statement filed disputed the valuation made by the plaintiff, claiming the market value of the property to be Rs. 13,48,000/- as against Rs. 80,000/- disclosed by the plaintiff and accordingly, contended that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That apart, a consequent objection regarding insufficiency of the court fees paid was also raised.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues regarding the market value of the property, undervaluation of the suit and insufficiency of the court fees, in the following terms:-

^^fook|d la[;k&4

vk;k fooknxzLr edku dk cktkj ewY; 13]48]000@& :i;s gksus ds dkj.k okn dks lquus dk bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\

fook|d la[;k&5

vk;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k tkdj vi;kZIr U;k;’kqYd izLrqr fd;k x;k gS\**

7. Vide order dated 9.2.2011, the issues framed as aforesaid were directed to be decided as preliminary issues. Prior to it, two applications preferred by the defendants questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit were rejected by the trial court vide order dated 8.9.1998 and 6.4.2002, observing that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the court shall be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties, after framing of the issues.

8. At this stage, after framing of the issues, the defendants preferred an application under Section 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the property subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs. 80,000/- and since the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (S.D.) as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 50,000/- the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

9. The application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff by filing a reply thereto. The stand of the plaintiff was that two applications preferred by the defendants questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit already stand rejected by the court vide order dated 18.9.1998 & 6.4.2002 and therefore, apparently, fresh application filed is barred by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). In the alternative, it was prayed that the question sought to be raised could be decided while deciding the issue No. 4 as framed by the trial court and if it is found that the court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, the same may be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

10. However, the trial court framed an additional preliminary issue in the following terms:-

^^vk;k bl U;k;ky; dks ;g nkok lquus dk vUrZfufgr vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj gkfly gS\**

11. After due consider