The court is required to grant time to the plaintiff either to correct the valuation or to pay the requisite court fees before rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The appellants-plaintiffs have challenged the decree dated 22nd November, 2006 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (herein after referred to as the 'trial Court') in the civil suit filed by the appellants against the respondents, rejecting their plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit before the trial Court seeking cancellation of the sale-deed dated 21st January, 2005 executed by the defendant No.16 in favour of the defendant No.17, and for declaration, and the permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. It appears that the office of the trial court had raised certain objections with regard to the insufficient court fees having been paid and the suit have having been under valued by the plaintiffs. The trial Court considering the objections raised by the office and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs rejected the plaint of the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code vide impugned order dated 22.11.2006.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sudesh Bansal for the appellants that the plaint of the appellants could not have been rejected by the trial Court either under Clause (b) or (c) of Rule 11 Order 7 in as much as even if the Court had come to the conclusion that the suit was undervalued and the plaintiffs were liable to deposit the deficit court fees as per the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'), the trial Court should have granted time to the plaintiffs to correct valuation of the suit and pay the requisite court fees. According to Mr. Bansal if the suit filed by the plaintiffs is treated as one for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs had paid sufficient court fees as per Section 24 of the said Act, however, if the suit is treated as one for cancellation of the sale deed, the plaintiffs would be required to pay the court fees as per Section 38 of the said Act. He further submitted placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Others (2010) 12 SCC 112 that the plaintiffs being not the executants of the sale deed, they were required to file suit only for declaration and not cancellation of the sale deed.

5. However, the learned Senior counsel Mr. RK Agarwal appearing for respondent No.17, raising a preliminary objection submitted that the appellants having not paid the proper court fees as per the order passed by the trial Court, the present appeal is not maintainable. He further submitted that from the contents and prayer clause of the plaint, it clearly transpires that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking cancellation of the sale-deed executed by the defendant No.16 in favour of the defendant No.17 and therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiffs were liable to pay the court fees as per Section 38 of the said Act and not as per Section 24 of the said Act. Mr. Agrawal has fairly submitted that the trial Court had not granted time to the plaintiffs for the payment of requisite court fees before rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Simlote appearing for respondent No.18 & 21 has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal for respondent No.17.

6. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal for respondent No.17 is concerned, it may be stated that the trial Court in the impugned order has not passed any specific order directing the plaintiffs to pay the requisite court fees. According to the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had already paid the requisite court fees considering the nature of the suit. Be that as it may, since the impugned order passed by the trial Court