[2025:RJ-JP:16752] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 314/2024 1. Smt. Manisha Prajapat W/o Shri Durgalal Kumar, Resident Of Village Pakalpuriya, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.) (Deceased) Through Lrs- 1/1. Kamlesh S/o Durgalal, Resident Of Pakalpuriya, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.). 1/2. Muskan D/o Durgalal, Resident Of Pakalpuriya, Tehsil And District Bundi(Raj.). 1/3 Durgalal S/o Hazarilal, Resident Of Pakalpuriya, Tehsil And District Bundi(Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Radheyshyam S/o Kishor, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Aamli, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Bundi Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.). 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Bundi, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj,.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 22 /0 4 /2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bundi in Civil Suit No.47/2021, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:16752] (2 of 3) [CR-314/2024] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaring of the sale deed dated 01.05.2018 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the said suit was filed after a period of three years and plaintiff had not paid the court fees as per sale deed of Rs.12,20,000/- on the basis of Rajasthan Suit Valuation and Court Fees Act, so, defendants filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred and he had not paid the requisite court fees and paid the court fees of Rs.50/- only as per Section 24A and Section 7(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 but trial court vide its order dated 17.09.2024 had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, present petition filed by the defendants be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that question regarding limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and plaintiff had rightly paid the court fees. If court finds that court fees was deficient, then order regarding paying the court fees could be passed at final stage. So, the present petition filed by the defendants 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 plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:16752] (3 of 3) [CR-314/2024] It is an admitted position that the objection raised by the defendants regarding limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is also an admitted position that the plaintiff wanted to declare the sale deed of Rs.12,20,000/- as null and void but he had paid the deficient court fees by invoking the wrong provision of the valuation. Plaintiff had to pay court fees according to the value of the instrument dated 01.05.2018. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be partly allowed. The present civil revision petition is partly allowed and order dated 17.09.2024 qua deficient court fees is set aside and trial court is directed to procure the court fees as per valuation of the instrument dated 01.05.2018. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /119