JUDGMENT This is a petition filed by the plaintiff under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the legality and validity of an order dated 22.3.2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 1/2003 by Third Additional District Judge, Dewas. Since right to file a revision is taken away under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to amendment made in the said section, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition against the said order. By impugned order, the application made by the plaintiff under section 35 of the Court-fees Act has been rejected holding inter alia that plaintiff does not satisfy the requirement of the notification and hence she cannot be given permission to file a suit as an indigent person. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice rule 431 of the M.P. Civil Courts Rules, 1961 which contains sub-rule 22 of rule 431. It reads as under: "22. The fees on the property of (i) any person subject to the [Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950] who is killed while on active service or on service which is of a warlike nature or involves the same risk as active service or dies from wounds inflicted, accidents occurring or disease contracted while on such service and (ii) any person being a Government servant, Civil or Military, who dies from wounds or injuries intentionally inflicted while in actual performance of his official duties or in consequence of those duties. (a) where the amount or value of property in respect of which the grant of probate or letters of administration is made or which is specified in the certificate under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- to remit the whole of the fees leviable in respect of that property. (b) where the said amount or value exceeds Rs. 50,000/- to remit the whole of the said fees in respect of the first Rs. 50,000/-. (c) where any property passes more than once in consequence of such deaths, to remit, in the case of second and subsequent successions, the whole of the said fees irrespective of the value or amount of such property. 50,000/- to remit the whole of the said fees in respect of the first Rs. 50,000/-. (c) where any property passes more than once in consequence of such deaths, to remit, in the case of second and subsequent successions, the whole of the said fees irrespective of the value or amount of such property. According to learned counsel, the case of the plaintiff also falls in the aforementioned rule because admittedly plaintiff has acquired the property consequent upon the death of her husband who died while acting on active service in Air Force. According to learned counsel, the plaintiff is entitled to get the benefit of this rule for claiming exemption from payment of Court fees. In reply learned counsel for respondents submitted that this issue was not examined by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, the same cannot be examined by this Court for the first time in the Writ Petition or in the alternative according to learned counsel the matter has to go back for examining the case of plaintiff in the light of sub-rule (22) quoted supra. In my opinion, the trial Court is required to examine the issue in the light of sub-rule 22 quoted supra with a view to find out whether plaintiff can be given exemption from payment of Court fees pursuant to the aforequoted rule framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of certain categories of persons. Since this question was not examined by the learned trial Judge from that point of view, may be because the parties did not bring it to his notice, I deem it proper to remand the case to the learned trial Judge for deciding the question of Court fees payable by the plaintiff on the memorandum of plaint in the light of the aforementioned sub-rule (22). Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, though I do not wish to examine the question decided by the trial Court so far as section 35 of the Court-fees Act is concerned, I direct the trial Court to examine the question referred supra after granting opportunity to plaintiff as also to the defendant and then give a finding keeping in view the requirement of sub-rule 22 (supra) and then decide whether plaintiff can be granted any benefit from payment of Court fees and whether plaintiff satisfied the requirement of sub-rule 22 so as to get the benefit of the same from payment of Court fees. Let the issue be decided by the trial Court within three months. Parties to appear before trial Court and produce the certified copy of this order by the next date of hearing. Parties to appear on 8th of September, 2004. I It is with these observations, the petition is finally disposed of.