JUDGMENT The present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff-applicant against the order dated 4.10.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, District Raipur, in C.S. No. 43-N90, holding that the Notification F. No. 9-1-83-B-XXI dated 1.4.1983 for exempting the payment of Court Fee is not appeal able in suits for partition. Learned counsel for the applicant is heard. Since no one appeared on behalf of the non-applicant in spite of notice, the Govt. Advocate, Shri A.S. Jha, was heard after notice as the matter pertains to the payment of Court Fee. The applicant-plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession. According to the plaintiff she is a divorcee having no support and protection and has very insignificant means. Her annual income is lees than Rs. 2400/- per year. She, therefore, relying un Notification F. No. 9-1-83-B-XXI, dated the lst April, 1983 prayed that she be exempted from paying the requisite Court Fee. The non-applicants No.3 & 4 filed the written statement admitting her claim. The others did not file any written statement. However, non-applicants No.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. saying that since the adequate Court Fee has not been paid, the plaint deserves to be rejected/dismissed. The trial Court has allowed such application and has ordered the payment of Court Fee stating that the aforesaid notification is not applicable in partition suits. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the suit for partition is squarely covered in the said notification and my earlier Judgment reported in 1991 M.P.LJ. 774: Mahmooda Bi v. Sheikh Gafoor. Learned Government Advocate could not controvert the same. It is painful to note that the lower Court has neither cared to read the notification, nor my judgment on the point. The lower Court has not also given any reason as to why and how the present type of the suit for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff is not covered within the definition of above notification. Such type of suit is squarely covered within the aforesaid notification. It is also made specifically applicable in the case of plaintiff/woman having annual income less than Rs. 6,000/- per year. In view-of above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.10.1991 is set aside. The plaint is restored. Such type of suit is squarely covered within the aforesaid notification. It is also made specifically applicable in the case of plaintiff/woman having annual income less than Rs. 6,000/- per year. In view-of above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.10.1991 is set aside. The plaint is restored. Now the trial Court should fix the case for taking evidence on the point of annual income of the plaintiff-applicant and pass' fresh order in this behalf. However, there shall be no order as to costs.