[2025:RJ-JP:16754] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 324/2024 Roz Rajeshwari Benzamin Wife Of Late Shri Benzamin Uma, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of House No. 61-62, Presently Resident Of House No. 286-287, In Front Of Kavita School, Gali Number Sade Panch, Ward No. 47, Dadwara Kota Junction Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Amit Kristofar Harman Son Of Shri Thiyodor Harman, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of House No. 61-62, Presently Resi- dent Of House No. 286-287, In Front Of Kavita School, Gali Number Sade Panch, Ward No. 47, Dadwara Kota Junction Kota (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 22 /04/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-de- fendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.1, North, Kota in Civil Suit No.449/2024, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant and by way of the suit defendant sought the vacant possession of the disputed premises but plaintiff had not paid the court fees as per Section [2025:RJ-JP:16754] (2 of 3) [CR-324/2024] 29 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court but trial court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the order of the trial court is also required to be set aside because no cause of action arose against the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgment:-(1) Kamleshwar Kishore Singh Vs. Paras Nath Singh and others in Appeal (Civil) No.7952/2001 decided on 22.11.2001 and (2) Kamla and Others Vs. Ramesh Chandra and Others in S.B. Civil Revi- sion Petition No.529 of 2001. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that cause of action was a mixed question of law and fact. The plaintiff had paid the requisite court fees, so trial court rightly came to the conclusion that objections regarding cause of action as well as court fees would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is li- able to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that plaintiff filed the present suit for vacant possession of the disputed premises but he had not paid the court fees as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, So far as cause of action was [2025:RJ-JP:16754] (3 of 3) [CR-324/2024] concerned, it was mixed question of law and fact. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed an error in dismiss- ing the application filed by the defendant in entirety. So, petition filed by the defendant deserves to be partly allowed. The present civil revision petition is partly allowed and order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the trial court qua court fees is set aside and trial court is directed to procure the court fees as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /120