Honble SHARMA, J.–The meaningful question that falls for consideration in the instant revision petition is as to what should be the court fee in a contentious case for grant of probate or letter of administration. (2).This question arises in the circumstances set out below: (3).The non-petitioner plaintiff(in short the plaintiff) made an application for grant of letter of administration in the court of learned District Judge Jaipur City on the basis of alleged will and present petitioner-defendants (in short the defendants) were arrayed as opposite party. The defendants objected to the grant of letter of administration. The learned District Judge after being satisfied that the case was contentious directed to register the application as regular suit. The report in respect of valuation of the property was called from the Collector and according to him the valuation of the property was Rs. 33.50 lacs. The plaintiff disputed the valuation described by the District Collector and the learned District Judge directed the plain- tiff to furnish valuation of his own. The plaintiff was further directed by the order dated December 17,as regards the excess valuation by the District Collector by furnishing his own valuation or in the alternative to pay the court fee within a period not exceeding 25 days. (4). The plaintiff was further directed by the learned District Judge Jaipur City vide order dated Feb. 6, 1993 to file the amended plaint duly showing the valuation of the properties and to pay the court fee on the valuation within ten days as required under Order 7 of the CPS. The plaintiff did not comply with the above directions. There after vide the impugned order dated July 8, 1998 the learned District Judge exonerated the plaintiff from payment of court fee on his application for grant of letter of administration holding further that the plaintiff would be liable to pay the court fee on the letter of administration as and when ordered to be granted in his favour. Against this order that the defendants have preferred the instant revision petition. (5).As the question of payment of court fee has arisen in the instant case, no- tices were issued to the learned Advocate General. (6).Mr. Against this order that the defendants have preferred the instant revision petition. (5).As the question of payment of court fee has arisen in the instant case, no- tices were issued to the learned Advocate General. (6).Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants canvassed that on the regular suit being registered the plaintiff was liable to pay one half the scale of fee prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule (1) of the Raj. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (in short the Act of 1961) on the market value of the pro- perty as envisaged in Article 11 (J) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961. But the court below has failed to appreciate that the court fee payable under Article 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961 on the application for letter of administration is payable advalorem in case the application for grant of letter of administration is contentious and is registered as a suit, whereas the court fee payable under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Act of 1961 is on the letter of administration when ordered to be granted in favour of the plaintiff and that both the articles aforesaid, one in Schedule II and other in Schedule I, deal with two different situations quite exclusive of each other. Learned counsel for the defendants made an attempt to distinguish the case reported in Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (1) and placed reliance on Smt. Shanti Bai vs. Kishan Gopal (2). (7). Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General also gave his useful assistance and placed reliance on Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. Kishan Gopal(Supra). (8). I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before me and carefully scanned the legal position. (9). Before proceeding further, it may be useful to refer some relevant provisions. Section 50 of the Act of 1961 mandates thus- ``Sec. 50. Application for probate or letters of administration. (1) Every application for the grant of probate or letter of administration shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set forth in part 1 of Schedule III. Section 50 of the Act of 1961 mandates thus- ``Sec. 50. Application for probate or letters of administration. (1) Every application for the grant of probate or letter of administration shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set forth in part 1 of Schedule III. (2).On receipt of such application the Court shall send a copy thereof and of the valuation to the Collector of the district in which the estate is situated, or if the estate is situated in more than one district, to the Collector of the district in which the most valuable portion of the immovable property included in the estate is situated. (10). Clause 6 of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Act of 1961 provides thus- Schedule I Ad-valorem fees Article Particulars Proper fee 1 2 3 6. Probate of a will or letters administration with or without will annexed - When the amount of value of the estate in respect of which the grant of probate or letters is made exceeds one thousand rupees, but does not exceed five thousand rupees. Two per centum on such amount of value. When such amount or value exceed five thousand rupees Three percentum on such amount or value. (11). Article 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961 provides thus: Schedule II Fixed fees Article 1 Particulars 2 Proper fee 3 11(j) application for probate or letters of administration to have effect throughout India; Twenty five rupees (ii) Application for probate or letters of administration not falling under clause (i)- (1) if the value of the estate does not exceed Rs. 1,000; One rupee (2) if the value exceeds Rs. 1,000; Five rupees Provided that if a caveat is entered and the application is registered as a suit, one half the scale of fee prescribed in Article 1 of Schedule (1) the market value on the estate less the fee already paid on the application shall be levied. (12). A look at the aforesaid proviso demonstrates that the court fee in contentious case shall be one half the scale of fee prescribed in Art. 1 of Schedule I the market value of the estate less the fee already paid on the application. (12). A look at the aforesaid proviso demonstrates that the court fee in contentious case shall be one half the scale of fee prescribed in Art. 1 of Schedule I the market value of the estate less the fee already paid on the application. (13).In Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (supra) this court (Honble R.S. Verma J. as he then was ) after referring the aforesaid two entries i.e. 11 (j) of Schedule II and entry 6 of Schedule I indicated as under : ``A bare reading of the two entries goes to show that court fee payable on app- lication for probate is different from court fee payable on the probate. If the legislature intended that the entire fees payable on probate should be collected along with application for probate, then it would not have made a provision for the application in entry 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act and another for probate under entry 6 in Schedule I of the Act. (14). In the case of Vasudeo Vs. Lal Singh and others(supra), the counsel for the appellant made a statement at Bar that the practice in this Court is to collect fee on probate after order for grant of probate has been made and the said statement was not controverted by the counsel on the other side. It was observed that the payment of entire court fee on probate at the stage of making an application for probate places a heavy financial burden on the applicant. (15). In para 8 of the judgment,this court further indicated thus- ``It may be stated here that as soon as a caveat is entered in a petition for grant of probate it is leviable with court fee equivalent to half of what is payable on a suit. Thus it is evident that Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others case (supra) was not a contentious case. (16). The learned court below in the impugned order has placed reliance on Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (supra), where as the ratio of Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as the instant case is contentious one. (17). (16). The learned court below in the impugned order has placed reliance on Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (supra), where as the ratio of Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as the instant case is contentious one. (17). In Smt. Shanti Bai vs. Kishan Gopal (supra) it was directed by this court (Honble Jagat Narain J. as he then was) that the court fee in a contentious case for the grant of probate or letters of administration is therefore payable under the proviso to Article 11(j) of schedule II. (18). As already stated the application submitted by the plaintiff for grant of letter of administration before the court below was ordered to be registered as regular suit. Admittedly it is contentious case for the grant of letter of administra- tion, therefore the court fee is payable under the proviso to Article 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961. The learned court below has not properly considered the provisions contained in the Act of 1961 and committed jurisdictional error on placing reliance on Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (supra), the ratio of which is not applicable to a contentious case. If the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice. (19). Consequently the revision petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the learned District Judge Jaipur City dated July 8,1998 stands set aside and the plaintiff is directed to pay court fee in accordance with the proviso to Article 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961. Costs easy. _