[2025:RJ-JP:19269] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 138/2024 1. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shivcharan Ji, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Durga Nagar Poonam Colony, Kota Junction Kota District Kota (Rajasthan). 2. Shoyab Khan S/o Sh. Abdul Hameed Ji, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Rangtalab, New Basti, Kota District Kota (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus Anand Singh S/o Sh. Vishansingh Ji, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 206- Laxmi Vihar, Purohit Ji Ki Tapri, Kota Junction, Kota District Kota (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma Ms. Mamta Agarwal Mr. T.C. Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Chahar for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment : 08/05/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2 (North) Kota in civil suit No. 536/2023 whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants for declaring the power of attorney dated 08.03.2019, agreement [2025:RJ-JP:19269] (2 of 3) [CR-138/2024] dated 08.03.2019 and development agreement dated 26.05.2020 as null and void. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants filed an application before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that by way of present suit, plaintiff wanted to declare the so called agreement dated 08.03.2019 null and void, valuation of which was Rs. 4,95,00,000/- and development agreement dated 26.05.2020 as null and void, valuation of which was Rs. 2,90,00,000/-, whereas the plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fees as per Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Plaintiff had to pay the requisite court fees as per the valuation of the document(s) but he paid court fees of Rs. 20 only by valuating them as Rs. 400/-. Thus, the trial Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the plaintiff be directed to pay the court fees as per the valuation of the documents. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants as the question of valuation would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that by way of present suit, plaintiff wanted to declare null and void the agreement dated 08.03.2019 valued at Rs. 4,95,00,000/- and the development agreement [2025:RJ-JP:19269] (3 of 3) [CR-138/2024] dated 26.05.2020 valued at Rs. 2,90,00,000/-. So, in my considered opinion, plaintiff had not paid the court fees as per valuation of documents. Learned trial court has committed an error in observing that the question of court fees would be decided after the evidence of the parties. In my considered opinion, present suit does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge. So, present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper jurisdictional court after paying the requisite court fees. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/117