Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh (District Sriganganagar), whereby, the said Court decided the application filed by respondent No. 3 for direction to the petitioners to deposit proper Court fee for the suit of cancellation of judgment and decree dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh as per Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the order impugned. 3. According to the facts of the case, the petitioners filed Suit No. 8/2007 for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 24.11.206 in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh against Kanwar Singh, Sushila Devi and Surendra Singh regarding agriculture land situated in Chak 15-A, Sq.No. 298/448, 298/449, 290/448, 300/448 and 300/449 total 64.09 bigha. During pendency of the Suit No. 8/2007, respondent Kanwar Singh and Sushila Devi filed another suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of false and fabricated agreement dated 6.10.2005 and obtained a coll-usive decree on 30.9.2010 in favour of Dr. Nalini Bagh and Dr. Sarla Bagh. 4. As per the petitioners, as soon as the said fact of collusive decree came to their knowledge they filed Suit No. 28/2011 and 9.3.2011 for cancellation of collusive decree dated 30.9.2010 and prayed not to transfer the land in any manner. 5. In the said Suit No.28/2011, after putting in appearance, respondent No.3 Dr. Nalini Bagh filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Act of 1961 before the Trial Court to direct the plaintiff-petitioners to deposit Court fee as per Section 38 of the Act of 1961. The petitioners filed their reply to the application, in which, it is stated that the petitioners have filed sufficient Court-fee as such it is prayed that the application may be dismissed. 6. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application and directed the petitioners to pay Court-fee as per Section 38 of the Act within one month vide order dated 30.9.2011 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. 6. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application and directed the petitioners to pay Court-fee as per Section 38 of the Act within one month vide order dated 30.9.2011 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the order of the Trial Court is illegal because if the plaintiffs were party to the sale-deed or to the decree, then, the Court fee would have been payable under Section 38 of the Act; but, where the plaintiff is not a party either to decree or to a sale-deed, the Court-fee shall be payable under Section 24(a) of the Act, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of the Court towards judgment reported in 1978 RLW 209 and prayed for quashing the order impugned. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the relevant provisions of law. 9. In the Act of 1961, the legislature has specifically and expressly incorporated Section 38, under which, the Court-fee is required to be filed for suits for cancellation of decree. The said Section is as follows: "Section 38. Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc. (1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, and right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be- (a) If the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed; and (b) if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property. (2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiffs share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree, which is less. Explanation.-a suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section." 10. Upon perusal of the above section, it is abundantly clear that for cancellation of decree for money or other property having money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit; whereas, under Section 24(a), the Court-fee is provided for suits for declaration. Section 24(a) reads as under: "Section 24. Suits for declaration.-in a suit, a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25-(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of twenty rupees." 11. After perusing both the above sections, I have perused the copy of the plaint, Annex-1 filed along with the writ petition in the suit, following prayer has been made by the plaintiffs. After perusing both the above sections, I have perused the copy of the plaint, Annex-1 filed along with the writ petition in the suit, following prayer has been made by the plaintiffs. ^^vr% okn i= is'k dj fuosnu gS fd okn i= oknhx.k cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k fuEufyf[kr fu.khZr ,oa fMØh Qjek;k tkos& ¼d½ dh okn la[;kad 51@2009 vuokn lqJh Mk- uyfu ck?k vkfn cuke daoj flag vkfn esa U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] vuwix<+ }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 30-9-2010 dks fujLr fd;k tkosA ¼[k½ fd izfroknhx.k ds fo:) 'kk'or O;kns'k bl vk'k; dk ikfjr fd;k tkos fd os okn la[;kd 51@2009 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 30-9-2010 ckcr d`f"k Hkwfe rglhy vuwix<+ ds pd ua- 16 , dk eq-ua- 298@448 dk fdyk ua- 1] 10] 11] 20] 21] dk 5 ch?kk] eq-ua- 300@448 dk fdyk ua- 5] 6] 15 rk 25 dk 7] 14 ch?kk] eq-ua- 299@449 dk fdyk ua- 1 rk 14 dk 14 ch?kk eq- ua- 299@448 dk fdyk ua- 6] 7] 11 rk 25 dk 16-15 ch?kk vkSj eq-ua- 300@449 dk fdyk ua- 1 rk 20 dk 20 ch?kk bl izdkj dqy 63-09 ch?kk jdck] dh ikyuk esa izfroknhx.k ua- 3 o 4 vius uke ls foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr o iathc) djokus ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks gLrkUrfjr djus ls vkSj mDr d`f"k Hkwfe tks fd oknhx.k ds vf/kdkj ,oa vf/kiR; esa gS blesa fdlh izdkj dh n[kykUnkth djus ls izfroknhx.k ckt o eeuw jgsaA ¼x½ fd oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls mfpr gtkZ [kpkZ fnyk;k tkosA ¼?k½ fd vU; vuqrks"k tks oknhx.k ds fgr esa o U;k; laxr gS og Hkh oknhx.k dks iznku fd;k tkosA fnukad 9-3-2011** 12. Upon perusal of the above prayer, it is abundantly clear that suit has been filed for cancellation of alleged collusive judgment and decree dated 20.9.2010, therefore, the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioners does not support the contention of the petitioners whereas Section 38 of the Act of 1961 clearly provides to file Court-fee for suit for cancellation of decree. In this view of the matter, once the legislature has expressly provided the provision for filing Court-fee in the Act, then, no other order is required to be made. Therefore, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the Trial Court while passing order impugned dated 12.7.2011. 13. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. In this view of the matter, once the legislature has expressly provided the provision for filing Court-fee in the Act, then, no other order is required to be made. Therefore, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the Trial Court while passing order impugned dated 12.7.2011. 13. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the said Court-fee is not filed till today, the same be filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.