JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (East) Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur whereby, while entertaining the objection raised by the defendants as to insufficiency of court fee, the petitioners-plaintiffs have been directed to pay sufficient court fee after proper valuation of the suit as per market value of the property.

2. Assailing the order, learned counsel submitted that in absence of written statement, the defendants could not have raised objection as to insufficiency of court fee. He submitted that sufficient court fee was paid as it was on the basis of the amount paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 4. He further submitted that the sufficiency of court fee is a mix question of law and fact and in absence of any evidence in this regard, the learned trial Court could not have held the court fee paid by them to be insufficient. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned dated 25.08.2020 be quashed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is trite law that the defendant can maintain an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC prior to filing the written statement. Even otherwise also, Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for brevity, “the Act of 1961”) entitles a defendant to raise objection as to sufficiency of court fee paid by the plaintiffs and hence, objection by the plaintiffs-petitioners in this regard is not tenable.

5. In so far as the sufficiency of the court fee paid is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that in view of the relief claimed in the plaint, i.e. declaration and possession of the suit property, provisions of Section 24 (a) of the Act of 1961 would apply.

6. Section 24(a) of the Act of 1961 reads as under:—

“24 Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25-

(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market-value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of twenty rupees;”

7. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure-1) reveals that valuation has not been made as per market value of the property and hence, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in directing the plaintiffs to pay requisite court fee after assessing the market value of the property in terms of Section 7 of 1961.

8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.