JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition filed on 23.05.2008, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 04.03.2008 (Annex.5) as passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.56/2007 whereby the learned Trial Court has decided that the plaint was required to presented on the court fee payable on Rs.11,00,000/- and has directed the plaintiff-petitioner to supply deficit court fees stamps within a month after adjustment of Rs.5,065/- already paid towards court fees; and to carry out necessary amendment in the plaint within a month failing which, the plaint shall stand rejected. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit aforesaid while presenting the plaint (Annex.1) with the title " okn&{kfriwfrZ ,oa _.k dk lek;kstu "and has stated about his having entered into an agreement on 13.08.2004 for providing a building on rent to the defendant Bank on the terms and conditions as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint. According to the plaint averments, in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner applied for loan to carry out necessary construction work and the Bank proceeded to extend such loan in instalments, proportionate to the progress of the construction. However, according to the plaintiff, the officers of the Bank started creating obstructions in such construction and, by the communication dated 22.08.2005, he was informed that the proposal to take the premises on rent stood withdrawn and he was called upon to repay the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- advanced by the Bank as loan. The plaintiff has alleged having made several complaints to the higher officers against the Manager concerned but without avail. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner has imputed breach of contract upon the defendant Bank and has claimed damages with the submissions that in furtherance of the agreement he had already spent about Rs.15,00,000/- on construction meant for the Bank that was required to be dismantled and then residential construction was raised; that he was required to spend about Rs.1,00,000/- in dismantling; that he has further suffered loss of Rs. 6,00,000/- because of removal of the construction already raised; that he has been deprived of rent for about 11/2 years and claims Rs. 4,00,000/- on that score. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he has suffered a loss of Rs.11,00,000/- because of breach of contract by the defendant-Bank. 4. 6,00,000/- because of removal of the construction already raised; that he has been deprived of rent for about 11/2 years and claims Rs. 4,00,000/- on that score. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he has suffered a loss of Rs.11,00,000/- because of breach of contract by the defendant-Bank. 4. The plaintiff-petitioner has further pointed out that the defendant-Bank has adopted proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002) demanding a sum of Rs.10,08,076/- and has alleged such proceedings being in gross misuse of their rights by the defendant Bank. The plaintiff has further averred that he is filing the suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- after making adjustment of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- demanded by the defendant in the amount of his loss of Rs.11,00,000/-. 5. According to the plaintiff, cause of action arose on 02.01.2007 when the defendant breached the contract and threatened to adopt proceedings under the Act of 2002. The plaintiff has stated that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.11,00,000/- but, adjusting Rs. 10,00,000/- as demanded by the defendant, the plaintiff is required to make payment of court fees on the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; and hence, has presented the plaint on a court fees of Rs. 5,065/-. The plaintiff has stated that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.11,00,000/- but, adjusting Rs. 10,00,000/- as demanded by the defendant, the plaintiff is required to make payment of court fees on the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; and hence, has presented the plaint on a court fees of Rs. 5,065/-. The relevant averments as taken in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the plaint read as under: 12- ( ckjg ) ;g fd izfroknh }kjk vuSfrd :i ls fdjk;s dk vuqcU/k Hkax djus ls oknh dks fuEu uqdlku gqvk gS tks og izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS& ( v ) cSad }kjk fnuakd 13-08-2004 ( rsjg@vkB@nks gtkj pkj ) ds vuqcU/k dh ikyuk esa oknh us Hkou fuekZ.k dj 15 iUnzg yk[k :i;k O;; dj fn;k FkkA ;g Hkou fuekZ.k cSad dk dk;Zy; ds fy;s fd;k Fkk ftls okil fxjk dj oknh us vius fuokl ;ksX; cuk;kA bl Hkou dks fxjkus ls oknh ,d yk[k :i;k O;; gqvkA ( vk ) fd Hkou fuekZ.k esa oknh us tks 15 iUnzg yk[k :i;k [kpZ fd;k Fkk mlesa vf/kdka'k fgLlk fxjk;k x;k ml fuekZ.k esa oknh dk 10 nl yk[k :i;k O;; dj fn;k FkkA fofnr jgs fd lkjk gh fuekZ.k dk;Z oknh us izfroknh ds Hkou bathfua;j dh ns[kjs[k ,oa mlds dgs vuqlkj mlh ds lqijfotu esa cuk;k FkkA oknh us cSad }kjk miyC/k 8 yk[k :i;k dk _.k Hkh bl fuekZ.k dk;Z esa yxk fn;k Fkk mls okil fxjkuk iM+kA bl izdkj oknh dks cuk;k gqvk fuekZ.k dk;Z fxjkus esa 6 ( N% ) yk[k :i;ksa dk uqdlku gqvkA 13- ( rsjg ) ;g fd oknh dk Hkou ls feyus okyk fdjk;k 20]000 chl gtkj :i;k izfrekg dk ugha vuqcU/k fujLr djus ls ugha feyk o bl izdkj Hkou ds fdjk;s ls oknh Ms<+ lky rd eg:e jgk ftlds gjtkus ls 4 ( pkj ) yk[k :i;ksa dh ekax djrk gSA bl izdkj vuqcU/k dks rksM+us ls oknh dks 11 X;kjgk yk[k :i;ksa dk uqdlku gqvkA 14- ( pkSng ) ;g fd izfroknh us viuk lwpuk i= fnukad 24-01-07 ( pkSchl@,d nks gtkj lkr ) }kjk vius _.k dh olwyh gsrq /kkjk 13 ( 2 ) flD;qfjVkbZts'ku ,oa fjdUlV~D'ku vkWQ QkbZus'ky ,slsV vkSj ,uQkslZesUV vkWQ flD;qfjVh bUV~sLV ,DV 2002 ( nks gtkj nks ) ds vUrxZr lwpuk nsdj 10-08-76 ) nl yk[k vkB gtkj fN;ksRrj :i;ksa dh ekax dhA 15- ( iUnzg ) ;g fd izfroknh mijksDr ,DV esa vius vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, ;g dk;Zokgh dj jgk gSA 16- ( lkSyg ) ;g fd oknh us vius uqdlku 11]00]000 v{kjs X;kjg yk[k :i;ksa esa 10]00]000 ) nl yk[k :i;k tks izfroknh us ekax dh gS mldks lek;kstu djrs gq, ,d yk[k :i;ksa dk ;g okn izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA 17- ( lrjg ) ;g fd izfroknh us vuqcU/k Hkax dj vius vkidks vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, flD;wjhVkbts'ku ,DV ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djus dh /kedh nsus ls fnukad 02-01-2007 ( nks@,d@nks gtkj lkr ) dks mRiUu gqvk tc mlus ;g lwpuk nhA 18- ( vBkjg ) ;g fd bl okn dk ewY;kadu okLrs U;k; 'kqYd ,oa Jo.kkf/kdkj ds fy, 11 ( X;kjg ) yk[k :i;k gSA blesa 10 ( nl ) :i;k oknh vius uqdlku dk izfroknh ls yh _.k dh jkf'k dk lek;kstu djrs gq, 'ks"k jkf'k ,d yk[k :i;k ij U;k; 'kqYd ns; gS tks :i;k 5065 ) ikap gtkj iSlB :i;k ij vki U;k;ky; esa is'k gSA 6. The plaintiff has stated the prayer clause in the manner that in his loss of Rs.11,00,000/-, after adjustment of Rs.10,00,000/-, a decree for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- may be passed together with the interest @ 12% per annum. The prayer clause as stated in the plaint reads as under: ( v ) fd oknh ds 11]00]000 ) v{kjs X;kjg yk[k :i;ksa ds uqdlku esa 10]00]000 ) v{kjs nl yk[k :i;k lek;ksftr djrs gq, 1]00]000 ) ,d yk[k :i;ksa dh gtkZus dh fMdzh pkyw ln 12 ( ckjg ) izfr'kr ls fnykbZ tkosA ( c ) fd [kpkZ eqdnek fnyk;k tkosA ( l ) fd vU; dksbZ nkn equkflc gks og Hkh fnyk;k tkosA " 7. After examining the plaint aforesaid, the learned Trial Court has observed that in this case the plaintiff was not expected to plead set-off and was required to make payment of court fees on Rs. 11,00,000/- and has, thus, issued directions as noticed at the outset. 8. Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, learned counsel Mr. K.S.Yadav appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the present one being a suit for money, the provisions of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961') shall apply and the court fees is required to be paid on the amount claimed; and for the plaintiff having claimed a decree only in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the learned Trial Court has acted wholly illegally in directing him to make payment of court fees on Rs.11,00,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that essentially the relief clause in the plaint was required to be looked at and for the plaintiff having precisely claimed a decree only in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, even if he has taken other pleadings, the relief in the present suit would be available to him of Rs.1,00,000/- only and, therefore, he is required to make payment of court fees only on the said amount on Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed ; and that the plaintiff has taken other pleadings only in order to establish his right to relief. Learned counsel further contended that in the present case, for the defendant having filed its written statement, there was no occasion nor any justification for the learned Trial Court to have considered the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at this stage and, if at all, the issue of valuation and court fees could have been decided as a preliminary issue at appropriate stage. 9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and having examined the plaint, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. 10. If only a clever or artful drafting of pleadings would have helped, the plaintiff might have been able to somehow avoid payment of requisite court fees in this case. The fact of the matter remains that in whatever way the plaint is looked at, it is the precise case of the plaintiff that he claims damages against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- and is, thus, required to pay court fees on this very valuation. 11. It is apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner has not relinquished any portion of his claim of damages of Rs. 11,00,000/-; and this very amount remains the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fess and jurisdiction. Even when the decree has been claimed in the relief clause only in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, a look at paragraphs 13 to 18, as reproduced hereinabove, is sufficient to find that the plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 11,00,000/- and is precisely aware of the valuation of the suit at Rs. 11,00,000/-. If the suit is proceeded on the plaint as presented in this case, the Court is required to find and pronounce if the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages at Rs. 11,00,000/-. The learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality or error in requiring the petitioner to pay court fees on the valuation of the suit at Rs. 11,00,000/-. 12. It is suggested that the plaintiff having stated adjustment of the existing claim of the defendant at Rs. 10,00,000/- and having claimed a decree only in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-, court fee is payable only on the amount claimed as the final relief. The submission is not correct. 11,00,000/-. 12. It is suggested that the plaintiff having stated adjustment of the existing claim of the defendant at Rs. 10,00,000/- and having claimed a decree only in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-, court fee is payable only on the amount claimed as the final relief. The submission is not correct. It is the wholesome reading of the plaint that makes out the true nature of the relief claimed and as to what is the real intent of the suit. As noticed above, the plaintiff-petitioner is specific in claiming damages at Rs. 11,00,000/- and has not relinquished any portion of such claim. In fact, if the so called adjustment of the claim of the defendant at Rs. 10,00,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff is considered, in the frame of this suit, a declaration would come about that the defendant is not entitled to recover the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- because of being adjusted in the amount of damages. In this view of the matter also, the plaintiff would be required to make payment of court fees on the entire amount of valuation of this suit at Rs.11,00,000/-. 13. The plaintiff, by way of twisted pleadings, has attempted to avoid payment of requisite court fees and the learned Trial Court cannot be said to have erred or committed any illegality in taking up the matter on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC as moved by the defendant, even though the defendant has put in the written statement. 14. The impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error leading to substantial failure of justice so as to call for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. Bail Application Allowed *******