Judgment B. Prasad, J.-This revision has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the trial Court has erred in ordering the petitioners to pay Court-fees on the entire amount for which the petitioners have suffered damages. A suit was filed by plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 3,86,540/-. The plaintiffs had alleged that they had agreed to purchase four plots situated in Vivekanand Colony. Near Industrial Area, Jodhpur from the defendants under an agreement dated 17-10-95 and paid a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/-as advance. The date fixed for registration of sale deed was 15-1-96. The area of the plots was 1200 sq. yards. .2. Thepresent suit has been filed for returning the money paid because the plaintiffs had not purchased the plots as the defendants had failed to produce Income-tax clearance certificate and have also not deposited the development charges. It has been claimed by the defendant/petitioners that the case of the plaintiffs was wrong. No Income-tax Clearance Certificate was required because the valuation of the plots was less than the .limit which was required to submit the Income-tax Clearance Certificate and the petitioners having already paid the development charges, the plaintiffs cannot say that unless the development charges are paid, the sale deed cannot be got executed. 3. This has been the case of the defendants that the plots were still lying unsold and they are ready and willing to sell them to the plaintiffs as and when they like. Therefore, the case of the petitioner-defendants in the written statement was that they are still ready and willing to purchase the plots. Thus, nothing has been concluded as claimed by the petitioners until and even after filing of the written statement by the defendants. 4. It is claimed by the defendants that several letters have been written to the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed but the prices having fallen down, plaintiffs were not interested in purchasing the plots. The defendants have stated that they are not liable to return the earnest money. Loss of amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-has been suffered by the defendants. This loss is said to be on account of fall in the price and value of the plot. This amount of loss has been adjudicated by the defendants. The adjudication has been made by the petitioners themselves without there being any intervention of the Court. The petitioners have claimed that Rs. 3,60,000/-has been suffered by the defendants. This loss is said to be on account of fall in the price and value of the plot. This amount of loss has been adjudicated by the defendants. The adjudication has been made by the petitioners themselves without there being any intervention of the Court. The petitioners have claimed that Rs. 2,51,000/-which had been paid by the plaintiffs, is adjusted by them, they are still required to be paid a sum of Rupees 1,09,000/-. Since, the petitioners have not asked for a decree for Rs. 3,60,000/-, they are not liable to pay the Court-fees on this amount. They are only required to pay court fees on Rs. 1,09,000/-. 5. In support of their claim, petitioners have relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Somraj vs. Jethmal reported in 1957 Raj LW 113 wherein this Court was adjudicating the case of landlord and the tenant wherein tenant had filed a suit for standard rent. A suit of standard rent has to be valued at a fixed Court-fees. In that suit, this Court had held that the standard rent was less than the amount paid. When a plea was taken by the opposite party that the excess rent paid be refunded, court-fees is required to be paid. The Court observed that it is not necessary to pay Court-fees on a claim for excess amount. Such excess payment was not in the nature of legal or equitable set off Therefore, in terms of Schedule 1 of the Court-fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court-fees Act’), no Court-fees is payable on this. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied on a case of Madras High Court in S. Sathiapal vs. The Pandiayan Brick Works reported in AIR 1974 Madras 53. In this case, it was held that loss arising from plaintiffs faulty construction is not a “set off 7. Another case which the learned counsel for the petitioners relies is reported in AIR 1937 Lahore 62. Punjab Electric Power Co. Ltd. vs. Suraj Kishan wherein it was claimed that without paying Court-fees on adjustment, the adjustment cannot be claimed. The plea was rejected. The Court held that the claim was not a “set off , therefore, no court fees was payable. 8. Punjab Electric Power Co. Ltd. vs. Suraj Kishan wherein it was claimed that without paying Court-fees on adjustment, the adjustment cannot be claimed. The plea was rejected. The Court held that the claim was not a “set off , therefore, no court fees was payable. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has urged that in the written statement, the petitioner-defendants had clearly averred that if the plots are sold now, then they will suffer a loss. Thus, this was merely a presumption and inference of the petitioners, themselves that they will suffer a loss. Unless the validity of the claim of the petitioner-defendants is judged, it cannot be said that petitioners have suffered loss. What would be the price of the land at the relevant time and what would be the return of those plots, is anybody’s guess. Claim of the defendants in that regard cannot be accepted as pleaded by them. This is a question of dispute because it is not on account of lowering of the market price of the land that the plaintiffs have refused to get the deed executed. It was on a different account. The petitioners failed to get the Income-tax Clearance Certificate and the development charges have also not been deposited. 9. Thefirst question to be decided by the Court is what was the account on which the plaintiffs refused to get the sale deed executed. Unless this question is adjudicated, there is no question of the claim of the defendants being accepted that they have suffered loss on account of reduction in price of the plots. This question is the bone of contention. This is an issue which has to be decided by the Court. This issue arises on the pleadings of the defendants themselves. If there arises an issue triable on the pleadings of the defendants, then, the defendants cannot say that it is not a claim raised by them in their pleadings, which is not liable to be supported by Court-fee paid in terms of Section 21 of the Court Fees Act which says that a party is liable to pay court fees on the relevant claim. 10. This is the pleading of the defendants that a loss occurred to them on account of market price of land going down. This has to be established on record that the prices of the plots have gone down. 10. This is the pleading of the defendants that a loss occurred to them on account of market price of land going down. This has to be established on record that the prices of the plots have gone down. This is a question which is required to be adjudicated. This is the plea raised by the defendants in their counter claim. Such claim partakes the character of”set off’. Because without adjudication adjustment of amount cannot be permitted. In terms of the decision of this Court in the case of “Jagdish Flour & Oil Mills vs. Shri Ram Ladu Ram”, an adjustment has to take place before filing of the suit. Despite this, the suit was filed much earlier and the written statement was filed thereafter and until the filing of the written statement, the defendants have claimed that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract that if they sell the plots for the present market price, they will suffer damages. Thus, it was not anterior to the filing of the suit that the adjustment was made. 10.11. Adjustment has been claimed on the date of filing of the written statement. The defendants had chosen to define the market price. What could be the market price of the plots when the defendants filed the written statement is a question which requires adjudication. Unless this claim as made by the defendants in the written statement, is adjudicated, there is no question of holding that the defendants had suffered any loss. Thus, unless this is held that the defendants suffered loss, there is no question of permitting the defendants any kind of adjustment. It is on account of this point also that the claim set up by the defendants in their written statement is also a claim wherein they are required to pay the Court-fees. .12. Thus, unless this is held that the defendants suffered loss, there is no question of permitting the defendants any kind of adjustment. It is on account of this point also that the claim set up by the defendants in their written statement is also a claim wherein they are required to pay the Court-fees. .12. Learned counsel for the defendants has relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of “Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh vs. Paras Nath Singh” reported in(2002) 1 SRJ 294 : ( AIR 2002 SC 233 ) wherein, Supreme Court has held as under (para 8):-- .“It is well settled that the court fee has to be paid on he plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint the plaintiff has attempted at evading payment of court fee or unless there be a provision of law requiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the Court-fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff The Court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the court fees payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. Yet, an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of Court-fee and fixed for the purpose of conferring Jurisdiction on some Court which it does not have, or depriving the Court of Jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, can also be interfered with by the Court. It is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of Court-fee. The defence taken in the written statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of Court-fee by the plaintiff If the plaintiff is ultimately found to have omitted to seek an essential relief which he ought to have prayed for in the plaint as framed and filed shall have top suffer the dismissal of the suit.” .13. In terms of this judgment, learned counsel has asserted that the Court-fees is paid on the relevant claim by framing its prayer in a particular manner. Petitioners in this suit have stated that they have only claimed Rs. In terms of this judgment, learned counsel has asserted that the Court-fees is paid on the relevant claim by framing its prayer in a particular manner. Petitioners in this suit have stated that they have only claimed Rs. 1,09,000/-and, therefore, they are liable to pay court fees on this amount which is a camouflage for a relief which they want to have by saying that they suffered a loss without there being any determination. Petitioners’ assessment of the loss cannot be considered to be ultimate. The question of loss to the petitioners was thus required to be adjudicated. Thus, framing of suit in such a camouflaged language cannot mean that the defendants have merely asked for a decree for Rs. 1,09,000/-and they are only liable to pay court fees on this amount. It is only a crafty penmanship that is going to defeat the provisions of Section 21 ot the Court Fees Act. Thus, the revision petition is not liable to succeed. .14. I have considered the rival submissions and have given my thoughtful consideration. 115. Question relates to the payment of court fees by the defendants on the reliefs claimed by them as prayed in the written statement. Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the advance payment made to the defendants because the defendants have not fulfilled their obligation to make the loss so suffered when the plaintiffs could purchase it. According to the plaintiffs Income Tax No Objection has not been obtained and development charges have not been paid for by the defendants themselves. Defendants in their written statement raised a plea that they are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs have not got the sale deed executed because ac cording to the petitioner defendants the land price have gone down and thus they have suffered loss. Then they claimed that they have adjusted the amount against the loss and the loss being more than the advance money paid, they have paid he court fees on the aforesaid sum and have not paid the court fees on the other adjusted fund. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh (supra) has held that it is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of Court- fees. 116. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh (supra) has held that it is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of Court- fees. 116. Petitioners claim to have adjusted the advance money towards the loss. This adjudication is claimed by the petitioners simultaneously with his pleadings wherein they state that they are ready and willing to execute the sale deed. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not sufficient to determine the point whether the adjustment can be allowed. What terms should have been made earlier to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs. Even while filing the written statement, the petitioners have averred that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. However, until then it cannot be said that the petitioners were confident that they were making adjustment against the loss. Thus, until the written statement was filed, the adjudication was not made. It was at the stage of making adjudication that the question is to be determined by the Court. 117. It may also be noticed that the petitioners have claimed that the price of the property has gone down. It is their unilateral determination because on the fact of this assessment, petitioners claimed loss suffered by them. The plaintiffs have not agreed that price has gone down. This remains a controversy and the point is to be determined by the Court whether the price of the land has gone down. If the price of the land has not gone down or not this cannot be said until the question is determined, it is not possible to say as to what loss has been suffered by the petitioner defendants. Unless the quantum of loss is determined and quantified, it cannot be said that the petitioners, would be justified in claiming adjustment. When there are undetermined questions and unquantified losses, the Court is required to adjudicate. Adjudication is a preceding requirement of , relief claimed. If the defendants have articulated their words and pleas to mean that they have adjusted the advance payment, that does not mean that the loss has been quantified, that will require to be determined. For that very determination, they are required to pay the court fees. Adjudication is a preceding requirement of , relief claimed. If the defendants have articulated their words and pleas to mean that they have adjusted the advance payment, that does not mean that the loss has been quantified, that will require to be determined. For that very determination, they are required to pay the court fees. Having not paid the court fees on the amount which the petitioners consider to be due to them, an illegality has been committed. The trial Court has rightly ordered for payment of court fees on the entire amount of which defendant has suffered damages. No illegality has been committed by the Court below in ordering the payment of court fees. 18. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.