##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:13762]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3807/2026

Archana Rathee W/o Bhagwan Mundara D/o Purushottam Rathi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ratanada Bazar, Police Station Ke

Samane, Jodhpur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Bhagwan Moondara S/o Shri Radheshyam Moondara, R/o Khinvsar Kothi, Gali No. 1, Ramnagar, Badle Ke Pass, Tisri

Pole Ke Bahar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Raj.

2. Radheshyam Moondara S/o Late Shri Balkishan Moondara, R/o Khinvsar Kothi, Gali No. 1, Ramnagar, Badle Ke Pass, Tisri Pole Ke Bahar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur,

Raj.

3. Ramkishor Moondara S/o Late Shri Balkishan Moondara, R/o Khinvsar Kothi, Gali No. 1, Ramnagar, Badle Ke Pass,

Tisri Pole Ke Bahar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Raj.

4. Sushila Moondara W/o Late Shri Balkishan Moondara, R/o Khinvsar Kothi, Gali No. 1, Ramnagar, Badle Ke Pass, Tisri

Pole Ke Bahar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Khadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

24/03/2026

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner

assailing the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.62/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondents- defendants under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit

Valuation Act, 1961 has been allowed.

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 07:04:40 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 03:49:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13762] (2 of 5) [CW-3807/2026]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has instituted a suit for declaration and injunction seeking execution of a gift deed in his favour. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent had earlier filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court after due consideration of the contentions raised therein. It is contended that the respondents have thereafter filed another application under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 merely to delay

the proceedings.

It is further submitted that the said application was not

maintainable, inasmuch as Section 24 of the Act of 1961 is not applicable to the present dispute, and the case would instead fall under Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in allowing the application and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a

perusal of the plaint clearly indicates that the petitioner has, in substance, sought declaratory relief. Lerned counsel brought attention of this Court to the prayer clause of the plaint, which

reads as under:

" ¼d½ ;g gS fd oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknhx.k ds fo#) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMdzh tkjh dh tkosa fd os mDr oknxzLr tk;nkn dks u rks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks fdjk;s ij nsosa u fdlh dks cspku ;k gLrkUrj.k djsa] vkSj u gh vius vU; O;fDr] ,tsUV ;k vf/kd`r O;fDr ds ekQZr fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lkjHkwr

ifjorZu gh djsA ¼[k½ ;g gS fd oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknhx.k ds fo#) bl

vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kkRed vkKk ikfjr dh tkos fd os oknxzLr tk;nkn dk ekfyd oknh dh ?kksf"kr djrs gq, oknxzLr tk;nkn dh fxQ~V MhM fu;ekuqlkj oknh ds i{k esa cukdj mls jftLVMZ djokus dk

vkns'k QjekosA

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 07:04:40 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 03:49:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13762] (3 of 5) [CW-3807/2026]

¼x½ ;g gS fd [kpkZ eqdnek oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkus dk vkns'k QjekosA

¼?k½ ;g gS fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks oknh ds gd esa fo#)

izfroknhx.k gks fnyokbZ tkosA vr% oknh dh vksj ls okn is'k dj fuosnu gS fd oknh dh okn

"

fo'ks"k gtZs [kpsZ ds Lohdkj Qjek;k tkosA

Learned counsel submits that, particularly in prayer clause

(ख), the petitioner has sought a declaration of rights with respect to the disputed property. It is further contended that the document on the basis of which relief has been claimed is forged, and an FIR was registered in that regard. After investigation, the