[2025:RJ-JP:30676] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 62/2019 1. Suresh Sharma S/o Shri Kan Mal Sharma, R/o Prakash Nagar, Fai Sagar Road, Ajmer. 2. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Kan Mal Sharma, R/o Prakash Nagar, Fai Sagar Road, Ajmer. ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Shri Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ghewar Chand Sharma, R/o Chopdo Ka Mohalla, Near New Jain Mandir, Medta City, At Present R/o Prakash Nagar, Fai Sagar, Ajmer. ---Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Ram Ratan Sharma S/o. Shri Ghewar Chand Sharma, R/o Chopdo Ka Mohalla, Near New Jain Mandir, Medta City, At Present R/o Prakash Nagar, Fai Sagar, Ajmer. 3. Krishna Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Champa Lal Sharma, R/o Chopdo Ka Mohalla, Near New Jain Mandir, Medta City, At Present R/o Prakash Nagar, Fai Sagar, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Peush Nag HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Ajmer (for short ‘the trial Court’) whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 11(2) of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. [2025:RJ-JP:30676] (2 of 3) [CR-62/2019] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which after framing of the issues, the defendants filed an application before the trial Court under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 11(2) of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 but the trial Court vide order dated 11.01.2019 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed property and he had not paid the court fees according to the market value of the disputed property which is Rs. 20 Lakhs. So, the plaintiff had to pay the court fees accordingly but the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the trial Court be directed to frame the issue as per the objection raised by the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants clearly mentioned that the issue raised by the defendants is covered in issue No.1, so there is no need to frame a separate issue. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the defendants in para No. 12 of their written statement raised an objection regarding possession as well as the court fees but the trial Court had not [2025:RJ-JP:30676] (3 of 3) [CR-62/2019] framed the issue as per the objection raised by the defendants. So, in my considered opinion, the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to frame the issue as per the objections raised by the defendants in para No. 12 of their written statement. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/52