[2025:RJ-JP:2900] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6151/2008 1. Madhav Prasad S/o Shri Puran Mal R/o Kabutariya Kuwa Ke Pass, Laxmangarh, Sikar (Since Deceased) 2. Anil Kumar S/o Madhav Prasad, R/o Kabutariya Kuwa Ke Pass, Laxmangarh, District Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Laxmangarh, through Mantri Shri Omprakash Jajodia, R/o Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shri Agarwal Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh Through Mantri Shri Omprakash Jajodia, Laxmangarh, District Sikar. Smt Veena Devi W/o Late Shri Madhav Prasad, aged about 73 Years, R/o Kabutariya Kuwa Ke Pass, Laxmangarh, Sikar Sushil Kumar S/o Late Shri Madhav Prasad, aged about 55 years, R/o Kabutariya Kuwa Ke Pass, Laxmangarh, Sikar Sheela Sharma W/o Ashok Sharma D/o Late Shri Madhav Prasad, R/o Sector 26 Faridhabad, Haryana ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. L. Agarwal, Adv. with Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 21/01/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Laxmangarh, Sikar in Civil Suit No.67/1996, whereby trial court decided issue No.4 regarding court fees and jurisdiction against the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:2900] (2 of 3) [CW-6151/2008] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No.2-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit against the defendants for dispossession and permanent injunction in which defendants filed written statement and denied all the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was submitted that plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants after valuing of the suit property at Rs.3125/- but as per the market value, suit property valued at Rs.6 lac. So, suit of the plaintiff be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that trial court vide order dated 28.05.2008 decided the issue No.4 regarding court fees and jurisdiction against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that defendants had adduced the ample evidence that disputed property is valued more than Rs.6 lac. So, trial court had to direct the plaintiff for furnishing the court fees on property valued at Rs.6 lac. So, order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that defendants had not adduced the cogent evidence that valued of the suit property is Rs.6 lac. So, trial court rightly decided the issue No.4 against the defendants. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s) and perused the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:2900] (3 of 3) [CW-6151/2008] Trial court while deciding the issue No.4 regarding court fees and jurisdiction against the defendants clearly mentioned that defendants had not adduced any cogent evidence that at the time of giving the statement, the disputed property was valued Rs.6 lac. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly decided the issue No.4 against the defendants. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /84