JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 14.8.2007 by which the petitioner's application filed under Section 11(1)(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) was dismissed by the trial court. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the judgments of this Court delivered in the case of Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Mst. Shakuntala Devi & Ors reported in RLR 1984 1005 and Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Charandas & 37 ors reported in WLN (UC) 1980 102 it is clear that the court is under obligation to direct the plaintiff to disclose under which provision, he has valued the suit. Despite clear position of law as provided under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1961 and as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, the trial court rejected the petitioner's application. 4. It appears from the impugned order dated 14.8.2007 that an objection was raised by the petitioner-defendant before the trial court on earlier occasion with respect to the suit valuation and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court that application though was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and was rejected by the trial court on 29th May, 2007. The petitioner defendant cannot be permitted to take pleas about the jurisdiction of the court or valuation of the suit in peace meal and, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed having no merit.Writ petition dismissed. *******