1 . cw – 4107/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 2. CW.4106/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 3 . cw.1412/08 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgment dt.2.9.08 1/4 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4107/2007 Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4106/2007 Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1412/2008 Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 2nd September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Arun Bhansali for the petitioners. Mr. Rishi Vaishnava for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. These three writ petitions are directed against the order dated 30th September, 2005 whereby the learned trial court returned the plaint for proper presentation under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. holding that the suit was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court as the demand raised by the Mining Department was over Rs.50,000/-. 3. The plaintiff had valued his suit for declaration and injunction against the demand raised by the Mining Department at Rs.300/- only and had paid the Court fees of Rs.60/- in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved of this order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Arun Bhansali learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Daulatram Vs. 1 . cw – 4107/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 2. CW.4106/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 3 . cw.1412/08 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgment dt.2.9.08 2/4 State of Rajasthan 1967 RLW 401 rendered by Division Bench and provisions of Section 7(iv) (c) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 submitted that it is for the plaintiff to fix the valuation of his relief and the learned trial court could not have rejected the plaint ignoring such valuation by the plaintiff. 6. It would be appropriate to reproduce paras 15 and 24 of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the following terms:- “15......... It also seems to have been accepted by and large in some of these cases that the correct test for valuing suits of the type under discussion is not the value of the thing affected, but it is the value of the relief sought which has to be determined, and that if it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to state what that value is, then such value has to be a notional one and the plaintiff is obviously the competent person to fix it, though it is again observed that even where the value is uncertain but it is manifestly great, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have a final say in the matter and fix any value he likes particularly when the court says, as and where it can, that it is unreasonable or absurd........” “24. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are on the whole definitely inclined to the view that the plaintiff has an unfettered option to value his suit under sec.7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act for the purposes of court-fees, and that it is not open to the courts to disturb such valuation, except in case 1 . cw – 4107/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 2. CW.4106/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 3 . cw.1412/08 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgment dt.2.9.08 3/4 where the same may be found to be contrary to the rules made by the High Court, if any, under S.9 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is nobody's case before us that any such rules exist so far as our Court is concerned. We may also mention incidentally at this place that though the present controversy was not directly raised nor discussed there, this was the view expressed in the Bench decision of this Court in Sukhlal vs. Devilal (supra) to which we have referred above and in which while pointing out the distinction between the ad valorem court-fee payable under Art.1, Schedule 1 and that under sec.7(iv)(c) the view was expressed that according to sec.7(iv)(c), ad valorem court fee has to be paid on the amount on which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal; whereas Art.1, Schd.1 requires the court-fee to be paid on the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute and that the difference between the effect of the two provisions is this that while under the first provision it would be open to the plaintiff to put any arbitrary value upon the relief claimed by him, in the latter case, the value could not be arbitrary and must be put according to the value o the subject-matter in dispute.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously dispute the legal position as laid down by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court. Thus, it appears that learned trial court has erred in returning the plaint holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter as the Court fees was not paid according to 1 . cw – 4107/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 2. CW.4106/07 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. 3 . cw.1412/08 - Nalwaya Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgment dt.2.9.08 4/4 the demand of royalty raised by the Mining Department. 8. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 is set aside. The learned trial court shall try the suit in accordance with law. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.49 to 51 babulal/-